Think it has been awhile since I have done articles like this. It's not that I don't like doing these articles; it is because I do not have the time to do a comprehensive research on the topics like these and then give a sound argument... Okay what the heck; I'm doing one now, so let's jump in!
I was having this conversation with my friend, Arnold regarding his deck. The conversation was quite a long one, so I'll drive to the main points in the conversation.
Me: "For Abzan decks, what would be the weakest match-ups?"
Arnold: "Most likely to be Burn decks"
Me: "So what do you side in against them? Leylines?"
Arnold: "Yea"
Me: "What if I told you that using Kor Firewalker is a better choice in your deck?"
Arnold: "O.o"
Justification given was based on an earlier theory I discussed in this article. But, if you are lazy and just want to read on, here is a summary of the article; although we have 3 general archetypes of the decks we play in various formats, we are not exactly defining the deck well enough based on just calling it an aggro, combo or control deck. There are more to just knowing the deck in the archetypes; how the deck perform and react is really based on the mechanics and strategies the deck exploits to win. We know that the 15 slots in Sideboard can easily make or break your deck. As important as how your deck functions its win conditions, equal emphasis has been placed into sideboarding strategies and as well.
Okay, so we established that sideboard is important. No, I'm not going into the actual strategies. There are tons of articles out there, just do a google search. The focus point I want to talk about the perspectives of the sideboard cards chosen; why this card over the other?
Take for instance, given the example above, why I would rather play Kor Firewalker over Leyline of Sanctity in an Abzan deck against Burn? How do we define Abzan decks in general? Midrange? Aggro? Proactive? See, we cannot just simply define a deck into an archetype and say done. We have to go into specifics, like whether the deck is reactive or proactive. Which turns are optimal for the deck?
Leaving as that, We take a look at Abzan:
Arnold: "O.o"
Okay, so we established that sideboard is important. No, I'm not going into the actual strategies. There are tons of articles out there, just do a google search. The focus point I want to talk about the perspectives of the sideboard cards chosen; why this card over the other?
Take for instance, given the example above, why I would rather play Kor Firewalker over Leyline of Sanctity in an Abzan deck against Burn? How do we define Abzan decks in general? Midrange? Aggro? Proactive? See, we cannot just simply define a deck into an archetype and say done. We have to go into specifics, like whether the deck is reactive or proactive. Which turns are optimal for the deck?
Leaving as that, We take a look at Abzan:
- Midrange
Abzan works best in Midrange turns; at around turns 4-5 will be their optimal. - Aggro
The deck is still an aggressive deck; churning out threats and creatures to pressure and beat. - Proactive
Abzan decks don't wait. They set the clock on the opponents and goes all out to pressure the board. - Offensive Shell
As mentioned, they don't wait. Their spells and creatures are there to disrupt and reduce the resources their opponents have to interact. - Synergy
Their best game-plan would be turn-1 Inquisition of Kozilek or Thoughtseize, which likely then followed by a turn-2 Tarmogoyf and T-3 Liliana of the Veil. Their curve-ender usually would be turn-4 Siege Rhino or Tasigur, the Golden Fang. They do not possess much draw power, but makes up for making the opponents to have lesser resources than themselves, effectively giving them the needed advantage in both numbers and power.
- Best at Opening Hand; Dead card at draw or in multiples
- Shuts downs "target player" spells and abilities
- Doesn't interact or offer any form of board advantage
How do I describe Kor Firewalker?
- Easily killed by other non-red removals
- Chumps any RDW creatures all day
- Negates their damage by reducing them by 1 point (lifegain)
Based on the above, which do you think it's actually better for Abzan decks solely based on against burn match-ups?
For my preference, Kor Firewalker in an Abzan deck is a better tech against Burn decks, especially in multiple copies. For one, having multiple copies of Kor Firewalker has a cumulative effect in helping you against the deck, whereas multiple copies of Leyline of Sanctity is pretty much redundant. Let me elaborate on the point, having multiple copies of Kor Firewalker can mean that you have an additional body to attack or block. Having multiples of Leyline, on the other hand, does nothing as the effect doesn't stack.
Secondly, you remember how I mentioned that numbers and power is a needed advantage? Let's talk about it for a minute; as mentioned in my first point, having an additional body to attack and block makes a lot of difference in aggressive match-ups. Every point counts. Having advantage in numbers is a little more abstract, but bear with me. Having the first copy of Leyline of Sanctity in your opening hand does wonders, yes. But, the second one is starting to be a bit disappointing; it could be a Tarmogoyf or Liliana of the Veil. It could be a removal that you needed on turn-2 or 3. Worse still, it could have been a land that you need. (Yea, okay... this applies to Kor Firewalker as well, but if you are keeping and losing a 1-land hand, or 0-land, you deserve it.) So basically, in the numbers game, you look into having more options. For most cases, having more card options is always a better.
So now the question in place is that, if Leyline is argued to be weaker than Kor Firewalker, then why on earth is the former a $30 card, whereas the latter is just a $0.50 uncommon? Dismissing the economics of Supply/Demand and rarity difference, I have to stress that the above is merely accounting for a single match-up. In this case, Kor Firewalker is great against Burn match-ups, but what about other match-ups? Leyline of Sanctity effectively shuts down a lot of combo decks that "targets player". Hence, it has more flexibility over the latter and takes the slot in the sideboard in most decks regardless of what I mentioned above.
A perspective in sideboarding that is often touched upon, but not actually mentioned is that the point of sideboarding is not actually to "hate" the deck to make your opponents miserable. (Okay, if you are a sadist and think that this what you actually want to do just to torture people, go ahead... I approve!) The point why people think of the "hate" cards as "hate" is because it's easier to give reference on what the point a sideboard does for you. In actual fact, the better point to bring across about the purpose of sideboarding is to even out the odds of the game. Let's face it; Magic has still a percentage of probability, variance and luck factors which will affect the game.
So with that percentage of luck and probability, we tend to jam as much copies of the hate card as possible just to draw them out. But I'll impose a question; if the second copy drawn is redundant, will the plan backfire? Taking the example of Leyline of Sanctity (gosh... I think people thinks I hate this card. I don't.), the first copy drawn in opening hand is incredibly powerful. The subsequent copy is close to redundant. Yet, we still have people jamming 4 copies of those in the sideboard to increase the draw rate. It is common knowledge that there are a variety of strong general-purpose sideboard cards which we can use. But, if you notice that most sideboards split their "hates" against match-ups in a variety of 1-3 or probably 4 different cards. On singleton odds, the chances of drawing individual cards is something like 1/60 chance, but we must consider the range of cards as a full set. Simply put, (I'm sure several articles and people have pointed out) the cards sided in should synergise into doing the same thing for you, regardless the card drawn.
So why not just have 4 pieces of the same? Firstly if the card is great in multiples, why not? The example I gave is just happen to have redundancy in the subsequent draws of the same card. In for that, it would be wise to split the hate cards into multiple types of cards so that you have more options. Plus, having split the multiple types, these can go on to work double or triple of its value to hate other match-ups. Secondly, sideboarding strategies is a mind game of its own. Do you "hate" out the deck specifically? Do you "hate" their "hate" cards against you? Get the picture? Having a single playset of cards enables you to draw out that specific hate, but what about the opponent? Surely in post-sideboarding he may have a back-up plan or a strategy to work around it. In the end, it does matter what you choose and the multiples of it when looking at the general picture.
No matter how skilled we are in piloting our decks, we still need to also consider the fact that we still will have favourable and non-favorable match-ups. What I think that hating the deck alone is not a justified means of playing the card. In retrospect, going for cards that even out the odds of your deck beating the match-ups should be the perspective in mind when choosing sideboard cards. Consider this; having a good game 1 match-up would mean lesser sideboarding as compared to against another match-up which you have a hard time to fight against. No point wasting slot in your precious 15 to make your already favourable match-ups a sure-win. I rather just place 1 or 2 slots for those match-ups and focus more sideboard cards against decks which would be unfavourable against.
Lastly, you have to consider that the work of the sideboard really depends on the shell of the deck. What cards to use and play in your 15 have to synergise with your mainboard plans. No point playing something which simply "hates" your match-up, but yet does little to improve the favour of your game plan. It is possible! For instance, I use rest in peace against reanimator decks, but myself requires heavy grave usage. Sure I may be able to work around it, but it may result in hurting me or cause me a huge set-back if my opponent may have a way to work around it.
The topic on sideboarding is extremely well discussed and I believe some of the points I brought up may have already been discussed to an extend. However, I do think that the perspective of the card(s) chosen differs from individual players. Ultimately, I still do think that the common baseline for this is that we want to win the game and it is through sideboarding that we have access to utility/options to "hate" the match-ups just to even out the odds in favour in winning the game.
For my preference, Kor Firewalker in an Abzan deck is a better tech against Burn decks, especially in multiple copies. For one, having multiple copies of Kor Firewalker has a cumulative effect in helping you against the deck, whereas multiple copies of Leyline of Sanctity is pretty much redundant. Let me elaborate on the point, having multiple copies of Kor Firewalker can mean that you have an additional body to attack or block. Having multiples of Leyline, on the other hand, does nothing as the effect doesn't stack.
Secondly, you remember how I mentioned that numbers and power is a needed advantage? Let's talk about it for a minute; as mentioned in my first point, having an additional body to attack and block makes a lot of difference in aggressive match-ups. Every point counts. Having advantage in numbers is a little more abstract, but bear with me. Having the first copy of Leyline of Sanctity in your opening hand does wonders, yes. But, the second one is starting to be a bit disappointing; it could be a Tarmogoyf or Liliana of the Veil. It could be a removal that you needed on turn-2 or 3. Worse still, it could have been a land that you need. (Yea, okay... this applies to Kor Firewalker as well, but if you are keeping and losing a 1-land hand, or 0-land, you deserve it.) So basically, in the numbers game, you look into having more options. For most cases, having more card options is always a better.
So now the question in place is that, if Leyline is argued to be weaker than Kor Firewalker, then why on earth is the former a $30 card, whereas the latter is just a $0.50 uncommon? Dismissing the economics of Supply/Demand and rarity difference, I have to stress that the above is merely accounting for a single match-up. In this case, Kor Firewalker is great against Burn match-ups, but what about other match-ups? Leyline of Sanctity effectively shuts down a lot of combo decks that "targets player". Hence, it has more flexibility over the latter and takes the slot in the sideboard in most decks regardless of what I mentioned above.
A perspective in sideboarding that is often touched upon, but not actually mentioned is that the point of sideboarding is not actually to "hate" the deck to make your opponents miserable. (Okay, if you are a sadist and think that this what you actually want to do just to torture people, go ahead... I approve!) The point why people think of the "hate" cards as "hate" is because it's easier to give reference on what the point a sideboard does for you. In actual fact, the better point to bring across about the purpose of sideboarding is to even out the odds of the game. Let's face it; Magic has still a percentage of probability, variance and luck factors which will affect the game.
So with that percentage of luck and probability, we tend to jam as much copies of the hate card as possible just to draw them out. But I'll impose a question; if the second copy drawn is redundant, will the plan backfire? Taking the example of Leyline of Sanctity (gosh... I think people thinks I hate this card. I don't.), the first copy drawn in opening hand is incredibly powerful. The subsequent copy is close to redundant. Yet, we still have people jamming 4 copies of those in the sideboard to increase the draw rate. It is common knowledge that there are a variety of strong general-purpose sideboard cards which we can use. But, if you notice that most sideboards split their "hates" against match-ups in a variety of 1-3 or probably 4 different cards. On singleton odds, the chances of drawing individual cards is something like 1/60 chance, but we must consider the range of cards as a full set. Simply put, (I'm sure several articles and people have pointed out) the cards sided in should synergise into doing the same thing for you, regardless the card drawn.
So why not just have 4 pieces of the same? Firstly if the card is great in multiples, why not? The example I gave is just happen to have redundancy in the subsequent draws of the same card. In for that, it would be wise to split the hate cards into multiple types of cards so that you have more options. Plus, having split the multiple types, these can go on to work double or triple of its value to hate other match-ups. Secondly, sideboarding strategies is a mind game of its own. Do you "hate" out the deck specifically? Do you "hate" their "hate" cards against you? Get the picture? Having a single playset of cards enables you to draw out that specific hate, but what about the opponent? Surely in post-sideboarding he may have a back-up plan or a strategy to work around it. In the end, it does matter what you choose and the multiples of it when looking at the general picture.
No matter how skilled we are in piloting our decks, we still need to also consider the fact that we still will have favourable and non-favorable match-ups. What I think that hating the deck alone is not a justified means of playing the card. In retrospect, going for cards that even out the odds of your deck beating the match-ups should be the perspective in mind when choosing sideboard cards. Consider this; having a good game 1 match-up would mean lesser sideboarding as compared to against another match-up which you have a hard time to fight against. No point wasting slot in your precious 15 to make your already favourable match-ups a sure-win. I rather just place 1 or 2 slots for those match-ups and focus more sideboard cards against decks which would be unfavourable against.
Lastly, you have to consider that the work of the sideboard really depends on the shell of the deck. What cards to use and play in your 15 have to synergise with your mainboard plans. No point playing something which simply "hates" your match-up, but yet does little to improve the favour of your game plan. It is possible! For instance, I use rest in peace against reanimator decks, but myself requires heavy grave usage. Sure I may be able to work around it, but it may result in hurting me or cause me a huge set-back if my opponent may have a way to work around it.
The topic on sideboarding is extremely well discussed and I believe some of the points I brought up may have already been discussed to an extend. However, I do think that the perspective of the card(s) chosen differs from individual players. Ultimately, I still do think that the common baseline for this is that we want to win the game and it is through sideboarding that we have access to utility/options to "hate" the match-ups just to even out the odds in favour in winning the game.
No comments:
Post a Comment