Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Yeah, I would consider most of those to be good main deck cards.
Card/Deck Artifact/Enchantment destruction
- Thread starter Chris Taylor
- Start date
My 2 cents is side boarding is a bandaid for a fundamental game weakness (some cards need narrow answers or the matchup is warped). There's strategy behind side boarding. Not saying there isn't. But from a game mechanics perspective it's just sloppy.
That said, we have a ton of options now that are pretty flexible. We can also take steps to limit or remove the number of game warping enchantments/artifacts which require narrow answers from our cubes. So a great deal of this is largely customizable. I hope we get a ton more cards like Abrade/Forsake the Worldly. Cards like that go a long way to shoring up weaknesses in most cubes.
That said, we have a ton of options now that are pretty flexible. We can also take steps to limit or remove the number of game warping enchantments/artifacts which require narrow answers from our cubes. So a great deal of this is largely customizable. I hope we get a ton more cards like Abrade/Forsake the Worldly. Cards like that go a long way to shoring up weaknesses in most cubes.
Well, learning how to sideboard properly is a very valuable skill in retail drafting, and one that I find interesting. There's an interesting moment about halfway through packs 2 and 3 where your deck starts looking pretty fleshed out. Picking a strong but narrow sideboard card during those portions of the draft over a weak card that probably won't even make your main deck means that you get to use more of your pool and grants access to more power. I think expecting every card in the cube to be maindeckable is both impossible (cards are not created equally, and something is always going to be the 24th card) and not desirable. You lose texture from the draft when you construct your cube assuming nothing will be sideboarded.
I guess we have to partly disagree here. I don't think my creatures are stronger than my disenchant targets, but I still want my Terror effects. Maybe it is a meta thing, but I can't remember the last deck with less than 3 artifacts and/or enchantments. I want my cube to be skill testing, and if a player picks 0 artifact removal, he can't complain losing to that Crystal Shard he passed.
I often see decks that win with Rise from the Tides or resilent creatures like Tuktuk the Explorer + Wildfire, so some times even creature removal can be boarded out to some degree.
But I'm all in for flexible cards. I was really hyped when Abrade got spoiler. But I'm still running Disenchant and Naturalize for 2 reasons. 1. I think destroying two types of permanents is flexible enough and 2. I like to represent a lot of classics from magics past.
In the End, obviously, the right thing is what works for you and your group!
if they made a green color-shifted Forsake the Worldly, I think I could die happy. Dissenter's deliverance is a great card as is, and cycling is probably in top 3 mtg mechanics overall.
I've been relatively happy having a naturalize effect in green in the past. I ran nature's claim, and it saw decent play.
Whatever works for a format. For "sideboard effects" I think they should have a clearly vetted reason to be in the format, though, else they could be something more useful to more situations. I put Deliverance in over Claim for this reason, because
cycling is fine in the majority of decks, but it still is more SB than MB.
I've been relatively happy having a naturalize effect in green in the past. I ran nature's claim, and it saw decent play.
Whatever works for a format. For "sideboard effects" I think they should have a clearly vetted reason to be in the format, though, else they could be something more useful to more situations. I put Deliverance in over Claim for this reason, because
cycling is fine in the majority of decks, but it still is more SB than MB.
Cube isn't retail limited or constructed; it stands as its own format alone. While they may seem analogous, they serve different masters; retail limited requires a grasp on sideboarding because the design for retail limited is, by necessity, filled with complicated and hard-to-disrupt cards that are intended for constructed use, and although WotC designs with limited in mind, at the end of the day, they pack each set with some number of nigh-unbeatable bombs to populate the constructed card pool, which will, some percentage of the time, screw over someone who didn't choose the exact, janky common tool intended to disrupt it. It's perfectly fine if you want to replicate this better by including niche tools in the pool to take down particular strategies more effectively, but it's a deliberate strain you're setting on your drafters to expect them to do something that, by its nature, suggests you don't know how to manage a format in such a way to avoid powerful artifacts and enchantments taking over the games. To that end, I agree a lot with what ahadabans said above.
Expanding on that point...
This statement makes no sense. It's not possible or even desirable to have a cube where all the cards can realistically fit into a main deck? That's a bold claim, and one I would never agree with. I actually can't imagine anyone, even over at MTGS, uttering seriously that they don't think it's desirable to work towards a format where all the cards are maindeckable. Truly, it must mean that we have vastly different philosophies on what we want out of a cube.
Some of us have taken great pains to come up with formats that have an appropriate power level where everything within it is reasonably maindeckable. I don't think there's a single card in Grillo's lists or mine currently that really says "sideboard chaff only". Your claim that "cards are not created equally, and something is always going to be the 24th card" reads really dishonestly, because of course cards are not created equally, and of course players aren't going to run every card they draft; but this in no way detracts from the fact that it's perfectly possible to make a cube where every card can realistically be maindecked. Cards not being "created equally" has no bearing on that, because what works great in one deck, might not work great in another, and not every deck drafted "gets there" on the plan it set out to execute.
I mean, there are times when Snapcaster Mage has been my 24th card; I would hope anyone being reasonably honest in their assessment of my list wouldn't conclude by that incident that Snapcaster Mage isn't maindeckable, but rather that it just didn't belong in the main deck that time. I think the argument that people draft more cards than they need to fill a draft deck, ergo we should waste space pumping the list with niche answers, is a really weak one.
It's fine to say you're looking to replicate retail limited, or even that you're trying to mimic the feel of a powermax cube experience, but I don't think it's an "impossible" and "undesirable" pursuit to avoid sideboard-only cards in a format. And to your final statement...
I don't think anyone's assuming that, and I would contend you lose texture from the draft when you construct your cube in such a way that it demands the specific response of a small collection of extremely narrow cards to reign in your other card choices effectively.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Well said Raveborn, have a cookie!
...
Damn, no cookie smilies
I don't know if I would have worded the argument so vehemently, but I too strive for a format where no card by default is relegated to the sideboard. That means including disenchant effects that can be run maindeck and excluding cards that are narrow answers by design. A card like Deathmark, while very good against the right opponent, will never make the cut in my cube because it's situational by design.
...
Damn, no cookie smilies
I don't know if I would have worded the argument so vehemently, but I too strive for a format where no card by default is relegated to the sideboard. That means including disenchant effects that can be run maindeck and excluding cards that are narrow answers by design. A card like Deathmark, while very good against the right opponent, will never make the cut in my cube because it's situational by design.
And I think that's an apt comparison; if you aren't including things like Deathmark and can see them transparently as "cards that do nothing or are super strong against some unlucky foe", why not extend the logic and consideration you had for your player to your Drake Haven player?
player to your Drake Haven player?Because at best the half of the players will have a reasonable number of death mark targets with maybe one Person being totally screwed against it, because he or she drafted Selesnya. But when my whole cube would be drafted, 9 of the 10 players would have probably more than enough cards to make a main deck Disenchant worth it. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's worse, and maybe sometimes (!) it is not playable.
But guess what? Diabolic Edict is unplayable against the Tokens deck, Day of Judgement is unplayable against the hard control deck which wins with wrath-proof threats, Wild Dogs are unplayable against the burn deck ... That is okay. I don't feel the need to have all my cards as MD options for game one, because you are never drafting only 23 cards. That's important to have relevant SB tech.
In .y cube I have 85 targets worth spending a 2-mana instant on. That's every 5th card! Yes,I leave Disenchant in my Sideboard in 8/10 cases, but when I do, I board in it in 8/10 of these cases at least. So can you really call it a pure sideboard card?
But guess what? Diabolic Edict is unplayable against the Tokens deck, Day of Judgement is unplayable against the hard control deck which wins with wrath-proof threats, Wild Dogs are unplayable against the burn deck ... That is okay. I don't feel the need to have all my cards as MD options for game one, because you are never drafting only 23 cards. That's important to have relevant SB tech.
In .y cube I have 85 targets worth spending a 2-mana instant on. That's every 5th card! Yes,I leave Disenchant in my Sideboard in 8/10 cases, but when I do, I board in it in 8/10 of these cases at least. So can you really call it a pure sideboard card?
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
The thing you want to avoid is how magic was back in the day with some of these cards. You used to have these super power enchantments and artifacts running around that has to be answered, like moat (I suppose assemble the legion might be a modern day analogue).
Everyone was running them, so everyone had to run enchantment/artifact answers--including the aggressive decks. One of the reasons control was so dominent than, was your aggressive deck would have to run some number of disenchants, either maindeck or board them in, just to answer powerful enchantments or artifacts. That naturally detorated the quality of their hand/draws, and slowed them down. In a game, they could vary between being a brick, and being the card you most needed to rip to win--way too extreme.
Thats why reclamation sage is such a good card--you at least get a threat. Its also why I don't really care for the non-cycling versions of disenchant/naturalize--just a bit too narrow for me.
I also tend to trend away from the extreme artifacts or enchantments.
I do like sideboarding in cube in general, and view it as a sign of a healthy meta. You're probably going to have a wealth of options, and I like it when decks can use the sb to modify their plan to best fit the matchup.
If I don't have some disenchant/naturalize varient (usually I run the cycling ones) I will get the occational complaint however. They might wheel in 8/10 drafts, but if they aren't there in that one draft, I'm going to hear about it.
Everyone was running them, so everyone had to run enchantment/artifact answers--including the aggressive decks. One of the reasons control was so dominent than, was your aggressive deck would have to run some number of disenchants, either maindeck or board them in, just to answer powerful enchantments or artifacts. That naturally detorated the quality of their hand/draws, and slowed them down. In a game, they could vary between being a brick, and being the card you most needed to rip to win--way too extreme.
Thats why reclamation sage is such a good card--you at least get a threat. Its also why I don't really care for the non-cycling versions of disenchant/naturalize--just a bit too narrow for me.
I also tend to trend away from the extreme artifacts or enchantments.
I do like sideboarding in cube in general, and view it as a sign of a healthy meta. You're probably going to have a wealth of options, and I like it when decks can use the sb to modify their plan to best fit the matchup.
If I don't have some disenchant/naturalize varient (usually I run the cycling ones) I will get the occational complaint however. They might wheel in 8/10 drafts, but if they aren't there in that one draft, I'm going to hear about it.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Thats worth pulling out, because at the crux of the discussion is what sideboarding means. The concept laid out here is fairly challenging, since on a surface level it looks like a contridition: cards should be of relatively equal worth (tight power band), yet at the same time, must be laid out in a hierarchical structure that judges worth (the draft/construction).
What you're doing is tightning the power band to a reasonable level, creating equality of card worth in the abstract, than allowing for the drafter's directionality to provide the context by which the cards should be ranked on a hierarchy. We're taking abstract equality, and turning it into a contexual hierachy (or contextual inequality, if you will).
Or as someone mentioned in a cubetutor note to me:
Maybe a bit crude, but to the point. Where I like sideboarding, is where a player gets a particularly rich pool, and there is an additional layor of hierarchial ranking, depending on the context of the matchup. So, we have the chaos of the draft, organized into a contextual hierachy, that can be further organized depending on the additional context of that match.
That can change though, depending on the format structure. So, take for example the sideboarding that ahada dislikes (which I dislike as well). In that structure, there are awkward gaps in the format, and situational sb cards are supposed to the solution. Because of power disparities in the card pool, the hierachy rankings can be memorized before hand, and much of the directionality of the draft, and corresponding deck construction, is effectively pre-determined. This is something you see in retail draft formats all the time--players will just memorize a power ranking, and let that guide the draft and deck construction.
In that context, you can comment on the inequality of cards as being static, without ever really adjusting for context, and it would still be a true story. With a certain percentage of chaff guaranteed, why not provide narrow sb tools? In fact, Maro bases a lot of his limited design on just that proposition, with a certain % of chaff being expected from each draft, and the struggle to get 23 "playable" cards. When the idea of "playable" cards is relevent to a draft, its telling you something.
Not wanting to oversimplify anyone else's position. Each of these can be a true story, within their own little world.
Do you listen to much Limited Resources? It's of course focused on the competitive side of Magic rather than the development side, but learning to be competitive in deckbuilding and card evaluation skills is important to be a good designer. But Marshall Sutcliffe had a whole rant that he went on more than once when talking about Amonkhet because he felt the cards that would normally be put in the sideboard all had Cycling 2 tacked on, and thus they were more often put in the main deck. This actually stifled creativity during drafting because going all in on a card like Sandwurm Convergence or Drake Haven would get punished so much more often in game 1 than it normally would. It lead me to reevaluate how I approach hate cards. There's a balance. You can't make them too oppressive (see Boil), because then the other person just doesn't get to play Magic. But if you make them too general, you remove the cost of having hate cards in your deck. And of course if they're too narrow they never get played. So you have to walk a tightrope. The cards need to be just narrow enough to discourage putting them in the maindeck so build around strategies can work, powerful enough to do their job, but not so powerful that they become stifling.
I think a great deal of this boils down to how much of the game's depth you want in draft/meta solving versus in actually playing the games.
I think I prefer as much of the game's depth to be present in the actual game play itself. But I can see the argument for wanting it to be more construction/meta focused too (drafting is sweet and I love deck building probably more than playing, so part of me is conflicted on this). Solving a meta can be fun and in some ways more challenging that playing the actual games. And I think this becomes more true the higher power you go. At higher power levels, games tend to be over more quickly and/or decided by very specific cards. So it's about how you approach the matchup more than what actual plays you make in the game.
I'm reminded of Dragon Age Origins. Where you could get really deep on setting your party's tactics to the point where it was possible to just let the combat play out without you really doing anything. I loved how deep that was and it made me enjoy the combat system much more than I would have had it only been action based.
Back to Magic....
You have fewer meaningful decisions to make where powerful cards just win the game. As much as I dislike retail limited, that is one area where I think the game does often play better - barring some sort of bomb, you generally have a lot of choices and ways to turn games around. Sure, how good of a deck you drafted matters still, but how you play and what choices you make is equally (maybe more?) important. Harkening back to a discussion we had about what sort of meta would be the most competitive, I believe it would be pretty low powered for this reason. Bringing the discussion full circle... the (largely) singleton nature of cube, in addition to the fact that there is very little chaff (and often flat power curves) - all that contributes to a more decision rich in game experience without some of the painfully lower powered grindy nature of traditional limited. And being configurable, you can make SBing as important or unimportant as you want. It's season to taste.
I think I prefer as much of the game's depth to be present in the actual game play itself. But I can see the argument for wanting it to be more construction/meta focused too (drafting is sweet and I love deck building probably more than playing, so part of me is conflicted on this). Solving a meta can be fun and in some ways more challenging that playing the actual games. And I think this becomes more true the higher power you go. At higher power levels, games tend to be over more quickly and/or decided by very specific cards. So it's about how you approach the matchup more than what actual plays you make in the game.
I'm reminded of Dragon Age Origins. Where you could get really deep on setting your party's tactics to the point where it was possible to just let the combat play out without you really doing anything. I loved how deep that was and it made me enjoy the combat system much more than I would have had it only been action based.
Back to Magic....
You have fewer meaningful decisions to make where powerful cards just win the game. As much as I dislike retail limited, that is one area where I think the game does often play better - barring some sort of bomb, you generally have a lot of choices and ways to turn games around. Sure, how good of a deck you drafted matters still, but how you play and what choices you make is equally (maybe more?) important. Harkening back to a discussion we had about what sort of meta would be the most competitive, I believe it would be pretty low powered for this reason. Bringing the discussion full circle... the (largely) singleton nature of cube, in addition to the fact that there is very little chaff (and often flat power curves) - all that contributes to a more decision rich in game experience without some of the painfully lower powered grindy nature of traditional limited. And being configurable, you can make SBing as important or unimportant as you want. It's season to taste.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Re: Limited Resources. Their are a lot of problems I have with that, but the big one is catagorizing these cards as "hate cards" when we should be talking about answer density.
His entire position seems pretty questionable. He's a competitive player, complaining about his inability to live the dream with fun cards, on the basis that answer density is too thick, so instead of trimming the answer density down, he wants to run more narrow answers, so people put them in a sideboard, and he can live the dream game one, when the opponent is sitting there dying to 5/5 wurms from an enchantment they can't hope to answer. Presumably, he would than sb out drake haven or convergence every game 2?
Sounds weird to me.
His entire position seems pretty questionable. He's a competitive player, complaining about his inability to live the dream with fun cards, on the basis that answer density is too thick, so instead of trimming the answer density down, he wants to run more narrow answers, so people put them in a sideboard, and he can live the dream game one, when the opponent is sitting there dying to 5/5 wurms from an enchantment they can't hope to answer. Presumably, he would than sb out drake haven or convergence every game 2?
Sounds weird to me.
This is a good point actually. And in cube, we can limit the availability of both game winning threats needing specific answers and those narrow answer cards (or how narrow the answer cards are). And finding the balance isn't always easy. Drake Haven is a cheap enchantment, so having it answered by a 3 mana card doesn't feel like a huge issue to me (if your deck only works with a Drake Haven, something probably went wrong in draft?). Sandwurm Convergence though is expensive and you have to put in some effort to get that into play - it really shouldn't be that easy to answer if you want it to be something worth drafting around. And having that answered by the same 3 mana spell everyone runs because it cycles is more of an issue in my mind. It's much like having super cheap removal spells and then expecting people to play things like Verdant Force. Or efficient and super flexible bounce (Into the Roil) alongside expensive permanents that need to be in play for a time to exact value. I can see the argument for running Repeal (can't be cheaper than what you bounce) and Disenchant (real cost running it main deck because it can brick) over Into The Roil (4 mana card parity instant speed answer for pretty much everything) and Forsake the Worldly (cycles so can't brick) in a cube where you wanted it defined by slow expensive things. Of course, mainstream cubing has evolved the opposite of this and that's why pretty much everything 3 mana or more provides immediate value or it isn't cubed. More flexible answer cards are more appropriate in that type of meta I feel.
The thing is, I don't have and want super powerful unbeatable enchantments. Mono red should be able to beat them too. But just because you might be able to beat a crystal shard, it doesn't mean you could not have a better match up with a removal for it. That's important. I try to have every card be beatable without a hard narrow answer - artifacts and enchantments as well.
That's the reason I start with Disenchant in the SB often, because it's power level depends more on my opponents deck than the power level of Pacifism. But after g1 I have the information to put it into my deck comfortably. Maybe I should main deck it more often than 20% of the time. Its just that I try to minimize the Chance of dead cards. And with being dead in like 4-5% of the games, this is already higher than my other cube cards.
That's the reason I start with Disenchant in the SB often, because it's power level depends more on my opponents deck than the power level of Pacifism. But after g1 I have the information to put it into my deck comfortably. Maybe I should main deck it more often than 20% of the time. Its just that I try to minimize the Chance of dead cards. And with being dead in like 4-5% of the games, this is already higher than my other cube cards.
This is interesting to me, and I think it gets to the heart of the philosophical difference going on in this thread. See, I LOVE retail limited. It's my 2nd favorite way to play Magic (after Cube of course), and in some ways I think it's the purest way to play. I wonder how much of the divide can be chalked up to that one difference of opinion.
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Not really.
Retail limited formats are notoriously prone to wide power bands, because WOTC uses the rare and mythic slots to push pack sales. When pro players prepare for competitive play using an average limited set, its not much deeper than laying out a hierachy ranking, and letting the hierachy ranking control their picks. They'll even do this with color pairs, when their is a disparity in power level between them (which their often is, because WOTC never does all 10 guilds in a limited set).
The retail formats that tend to be praised as exceptional, are the ones with a narrow power band, at which time, the pros all note with amazement how its impossible to list out a power ranking, and how that makes the format deeper and better. Triple III is infamous for this:
Or
Or if that is still too complicated:
Your average retail format is probably the absolute worst format you could use as a competitive benchmark, because of the RNG inherient in bomb ripping.
And thats all we care about when making a competitive format: reducing RNG. Not power level, but not allowing RNG to create an artificial skill ceiling. Pauper used to have turn 2-4 kills.
Marshal's argument isn't completly wrong, but its really distorted. Like ahada pointed out, you run into the same problem if you run expensive monsters without ETBs alongside cheap interaction, and people will start making the same complaints he is, but about creatures (whats even the point of ulamog's crusher if its just going to get threatened/control magiced/helmed of obedianced/countered) If thats happening, I'm not going to try to force my interaction into the sb, i'm going to toy with its quality and density, but keep it maindeckable. If that dosen't work, i'm going to cut crusher.
Retail limited formats are notoriously prone to wide power bands, because WOTC uses the rare and mythic slots to push pack sales. When pro players prepare for competitive play using an average limited set, its not much deeper than laying out a hierachy ranking, and letting the hierachy ranking control their picks. They'll even do this with color pairs, when their is a disparity in power level between them (which their often is, because WOTC never does all 10 guilds in a limited set).
The retail formats that tend to be praised as exceptional, are the ones with a narrow power band, at which time, the pros all note with amazement how its impossible to list out a power ranking, and how that makes the format deeper and better. Triple III is infamous for this:
Or
Or if that is still too complicated:
Your average retail format is probably the absolute worst format you could use as a competitive benchmark, because of the RNG inherient in bomb ripping.
And thats all we care about when making a competitive format: reducing RNG. Not power level, but not allowing RNG to create an artificial skill ceiling. Pauper used to have turn 2-4 kills.
Marshal's argument isn't completly wrong, but its really distorted. Like ahada pointed out, you run into the same problem if you run expensive monsters without ETBs alongside cheap interaction, and people will start making the same complaints he is, but about creatures (whats even the point of ulamog's crusher if its just going to get threatened/control magiced/helmed of obedianced/countered) If thats happening, I'm not going to try to force my interaction into the sb, i'm going to toy with its quality and density, but keep it maindeckable. If that dosen't work, i'm going to cut crusher.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
that first quote about innistrad is by the amazing KillingAGoldfish, some of my favorite writing about limited I've ever read, highly recommend.
Sideborading I tend to like less in terms of Deathmark or Disenchant and more in terms of Figure of Destiny or Bygone Bishop.
Having to maindeck deathmark in limited means you are REAL short on playables, or you expect the whole table to have targets (might be possible in some Judgement theme cube or something). Swapping out say, Goblin Rabblemaster for Bygone Bishop (Both of whom could easily make the cut in your maindeck) means you're making the evaluation that long game card advantage might be important, or flying might be important, or maybe you're just on the draw
Those kinds of "lets make my deck a biiiiit better" sideboarding are the stuff I like, not the "Wow there's no way I can beat eldrazi monument unless I disenchant it"
Just cut the monument
Sideborading I tend to like less in terms of Deathmark or Disenchant and more in terms of Figure of Destiny or Bygone Bishop.
Having to maindeck deathmark in limited means you are REAL short on playables, or you expect the whole table to have targets (might be possible in some Judgement theme cube or something). Swapping out say, Goblin Rabblemaster for Bygone Bishop (Both of whom could easily make the cut in your maindeck) means you're making the evaluation that long game card advantage might be important, or flying might be important, or maybe you're just on the draw
Those kinds of "lets make my deck a biiiiit better" sideboarding are the stuff I like, not the "Wow there's no way I can beat eldrazi monument unless I disenchant it"
Just cut the monument
Now see, I do agree that having a relatively narrow power band is good for cubes and limited in general, but it's possible to have a narrow power band without every card in the cube intended for main deck play. Now, I don't run Disenchant or Naturalize because I think they're boring, but for example I have Reclamation Sage in my cube and I doubt it makes the main deck 80-90% of the time it's drafted. But having that card in the board is important because then green decks can put it in their toolbox and pull it out when they need it. If your power band is narrow, that just means that the cards you have in there that are intended to be narrow just have to fit on the higher end of the band to justify the narrowness.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I don't view sideboarding as some kind of kludge or weakness in Magic but a fundamental part of the game. Magic is in many ways a game about deckbuilding, and sideboarding becomes a little mini deckbuilding challenge in between games, where you are trying to construct the most effective deck against your opponent's each time.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I don't view sideboarding as some kind of kludge or weakness in Magic but a fundamental part of the game. Magic is in many ways a game about deckbuilding, and sideboarding becomes a little mini deckbuilding challenge in between games, where you are trying to construct the most effective deck against your opponent's each time.
Dom Harvey
Contributor
IMO Innistrad is better at highlighting another important design principle: you can put as much cute stuff in your format as you want but it doesn't matter if you don't have the time/mana to cast your spells