Here's my question:
Do you feel it is acceptable to sideboard when your opponent has none? The question arose from the following experience:
Our first game was pretty close but I won. We were both playing decks that we were testing. We had this conversation at the end of the first game:
<****> gg
<johnnocox> gg
<johnnocox> whew you were on the brink of beating me the whole game
<****> yeah I would beat you if I had chosen a better deck
<johnnocox> do you want to switch decks?
<****> no I like to finish my best of 3s
The next game went by in relative silence, but I won that one as well.
<****> gg
<johnnocox> gg
We both switched decks, me to "I'm the King" and him to a Land Destruction deck. We played a very quick game without much time for talking, and he beat me soundly.
<johnnocox> gg
<****> gg
Next game in the match I start sideboarding to deal with his deck.
<****> sideboarding against a guy without sideboard? very noble of you
<johnnocox> says the guy playing LD
<****> you're a ***** you play control but when the other guy plays it you run to your sideboard and call it "mama" don't have the balls to play it without sideboard?
<johnnocox> I don't know why you don't play a sideboard
<****> well
<johnnocox> kp
<****> I think it's lame it's kind of a rule of reasonability to don't sideboard if both players don't have sideboard but you don't care about that
<johnnocox> a lot of people would say the same of land destruction My personal philosophy is play the best game you can
<****> yeah yeah
<johnnocox> that's why I don't think there is anything wrong with your strategy
<****> keep telling that to yourself
We play a couple of turns and he's keeping us both at 1 or 2 mana. With Boom and Small Pox.
<****> the thing is without the help of your sideboard your deck isn't good enough to beat mine
<johnnocox> with out the help of your deck your deck isn't good enough, that's what I just read
<****> that's because you're stupid
<johnnocox> loi
<****> I mean it must be the case if you have that kind of interpretation problems
<johnnocox> The sideboard is a part of the deck
We play a few more turns, and I'm starting to get a foot hold. Back at one land thanks to Stone Rain and friends but with Semblance Anvil in play that's not much of a problem.
I beat him game 2:
<****> gg anyway
And he leaves. So much for finishing his three's
What do you think is it "kind of a rule of reasonability to don't sideboard if both players don't have sideboard"? Or is it just the same as playing a deck that's better than your opponents?
Just because he was playing land destruction gives you more than enough to justify sideboarding. LD is almost as bad as Slivers in terms of irritation :-/. I think that normally if you have a sideboard and your opponent doesn't it should be determined between the two players whether or not thats acceptable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Luck isn't the only reason I win. Just most of the reason.
Here's my question:
Do you feel it is acceptable to sideboard when your opponent has none?
Casually, no.
In my experience, a large number of casual players do not have a sideboard. If I pull out a sideboard, it would be like playing a deck that was specifically designed to hose his. This is not just "playing a deck that's better".
And this applies no matter what the opponent is using, which is why I hate playing against graveyard based decks in casual (ichorid, animator).
Imagine this: player A has leyline of the void in the sideboard. Ichroid player B has no sideboard.
Player A: Oh, look at that, leyline in my opening hand! Another game?
(next game)
Player A: No leyline in my opening hand. Looks like I mulligan. Whelp, there's the leyline! Another game?
(next game)
Player A: Leyline opening hand! This is fun!
I may hate ichorid, but to me player A is being the dick here.
edit: incidentally, I also dislike wishes in casual, especially wishes that access entire collections/binders.
Playtesting your deck against an equal should be a no brainer. Although its a somewhat casual game, you're trying to learn your deck. You're correct, the sideboard is a part of the deck meant to address specific concerns. Like keeping a savings account for emergencies. How can he fault you for planning ahead?
If this was against someone really new to the game I would understand, but he just looks like an idiot.
I have to agree with mondu_the_fat.
I've been playtesting DGM standard on Cockatrice recently, and if my opponent hasn't built a sideboard yet for their new creation, I won't bother swapping cards in and out during the match.
If you're playing competitively and your opponent is negligent in not bringing a sideboard, you should definitely use one. However, if it's just a casual game there's really no point. The only exception would be if I'm playing a slow janky experimental deck to begin with and my opponent's deck is a significantly more fine tuned tournament ready deck giving him a strong advantage. In that case my opponent would likely want to best challenge I could offer, though chances are if he was playtesting for an upcoming event, he would probably at least have something of a sideboard prepared or proxied.
Anyhow, the best I can come up with myself is a game in the top 8 of a PTQ back during Urza block in which we were starting game 3 with time already expired, so the tiebreaker rule was that whoever had more life after 3 turns would win. And I lost to... healing salve.
In my experience, a large number of casual players do not have a sideboard. If I pull out a sideboard, it would be like playing a deck that was specifically designed to hose his. This is not just "playing a deck that's better".
And this applies no matter what the opponent is using, which is why I hate playing against graveyard based decks in casual (ichorid, animator).
I agree, in casual you should keep things as level as possible, which means if one person doesn't have a sideboard the other shouldn't either.
But what are your feelings on a more competitive match?
I've never seen anyone playing a sideboard in casual play and I've played at different stores with different people at different times. To me, sideboard is part of tournament Magic not part of the core of Magic. If players agree to a sideboard or they want to playtest competitive decks, it's fine. Otherwise, it feels incredibly lame to have your opponent brings cards to beat your deck when you haven't.
I play tournaments and even with our competitive decks between rounds we don't side if a player doesn't want.
I've never seen anyone playing a sideboard in casual play and I've played at different stores with different people at different times. To me, sideboard is part of tournament Magic not part of the core of Magic. If players agree to a sideboard or they want to playtest competitive decks, it's fine. Otherwise, it feels incredibly lame to have your opponent brings cards to beat your deck when you haven't.
I play tournaments and even with our competitive decks between rounds we don't side if a player doesn't want.
To be clear, my personal situation was testing for tournaments. (This guy was kind of a jerk, I wouldn't have played against him for fun).
They choose to have a sideboard of 0, I choose to have a sideboard of 15. In competitive play it is 100% their fault. In causal play it is basically the same question of "Is it fair to slam their Standard Dimir deck over and over again with Legacy Sneak & Show?"
To be honest I wouldn't have made it past the time when he called you a ***** without kicking his butt out of the game. There's plenty of people to test against out there...no reason to waste your time testing against a d-bag.
But what are your feelings on a more competitive match?
Competitvely, I'd raise an eyebrow and then proceed to sideboard.
To be clear, my personal situation was testing for tournaments. (This guy was kind of a jerk, I wouldn't have played against him for fun).
I consider playtesting to be casual, so I wouldn't play against someone I found unpleasant. For one thing, playtesting against a friend gives you another pair of eyes that can tell you if what you're doing is suboptimal against his deck.
If it were someone I liked playing against, I'd only bring a sideboard if we make an understanding that I'm playtesting with them. And I still won't SB if it completely hoses him (like the situation a posted above).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
The rules of the game state that you may either use a 0 or 15 card sideboard. I follow the rules. I understand the justification of "it's casual, if you use a side against a someone without one, you're being a jerk" but so is using a deck with a very competitive strategy and then not creating a side with the expectation that you'll be able to force someone into not siding against you because you don't have one.
If we're venturing into the realm of "well it's casual so the rules of a sideboard don't exactly have to apply" then everything about this game goes out the window. Enjoy playing against my Charizard while I cast Exodia on turn 1 from my 10 card Chancellor of the Dross deck. I can accept that a playgroup might have some house rules, but this was very likely an online game of magic against two total strangers with no specific "house rules".
I consider playtesting to be casual, so I wouldn't play against someone I found unpleasant. For one thing, playtesting against a friend gives you another pair of eyes that can tell you if what you're doing is suboptimal against his deck.
If it were someone I liked playing against, I'd only bring a sideboard if we make an understanding that I'm playtesting with them. And I still won't SB if it completely hoses him (like the situation a posted above).
You have to playtest the SB too, otherwise you are not playtesting the whole deck. Sometimes, late in play testing, the only thing I am really testing is the SB and my ability to bring in the right cards.
Then again, when I have done testing on trice (sadly lost mine and cannot dl it any more) or MTGO I advertise the the fact that I am playtesting competitive or casual.
I wouldn't see any reason to be upset about a sideboard. Heck, if my opponent whipped out an entirely different deck to beat mine, I'd be fine with that too. If I wanted to play competitively, I'd either decide to just play for fun at that moment, or decline and go do something else. Changing your tactics to beat your opponent is a part of the game, whether you just play differently, sideboard, or just pull out a whole new deck.
If I intended to test my SB from the beginning, and my opponent didn't like that, I'd simply play with someone else.
IDK if thats normal behavior on Cockatrice/MTGO, but that guy was definitely rude and way outta line. He didn't put together a SB? Thats his problem. You did, so make your changes and bash that little F***ers face in. I hate it when people act like that.
BUT if i'm play testing and really need to test out the SB against certain matchups then yes i would SB. i dont see the reason not to. some decks are really weak to some matchups pre-board.
I think sideboarding is entirely appropriate if you're trying to test a deck you intend to play competitively. Learning how to sideboard is part of learning how to compensate for the deck's failings in poor matchups. You need experience using your sideboard just like you need experience piloting the main 60.
As far as casual games not intended to test a deck for a tournament, sideboards get a little more dicey. However, for a format that includes them, I've no issue with Wishes... so long as the Wish is only pulling from your sideboard.
If you're playing with a deck with no sideboard then you are not prepared to play at all. Period.
Sideboards are a part of the game and they are encouraged to be used. Without sideboards there would be little flexibility for decks.
Anybody who complains about sideboards should reconsider not playing M:TG (competitively) or any other game that gives you the option to sideboard or substitute cards/objects/etc.
Never thought about the situation where SB would be offensive in traditional formats* and never actually seen this. For me it sounds like "you're not allowed to take mulligans if opponent doesn't take one", and the games after SB are as much of "harsh reality" of Magic as existence of answers.
*I would raise an eyebrow on sideboarding in EDH/Commander, though.
Enjoy playing against my Charizard while I cast Exodia on turn 1 from my 10 card Chancellor of the Dross deck.
Do you mind if i use this in my signature? I literally "lol'ed when i read this lol
But on topic, my friend used a sideboard before I started to play competitively, and seeing his sideboard and how he brought in certain cards against certain decks helped me be able to build a proper sideboard. So I think you have every right to bring in a sideboard against any deck, even if it hoses the other player. Just after the 3 matches, switch to another deck. Thats what me and my friends did and it worked well. We always just had manners about it... unlike certain people lol
I tend to agree with mondu. Two things, though:
1. If you were testing and specified 2/3 or SB then I think its clear you should use it. You are testing, after all (although testing against someone with no board doesn't exactly help much).
2. Even if it's purely casual, there are a lot of cases which you just really don't have a chance without boarding. Dredge comes to mind, It's really not even worth playing against without grave hate. There are some matchups that are WAY unfair without being able to board, and I feel like it's just as bad as boarding against someone without a sideboard.
Most of the time, though, it's not cool to SB unless both people have one.
If you're testing for a tournament, then there is no reason to not test games 2 and 3 with a sideboard. if you're playing casually, then its up to the house rules. If you're playing on MWS or Apprentice, anything goes.
If you're testing for competitive play, sideboard. Rain down salt all over his worm parade, it's his fault for not bringing umbrellas, or some other salt-deflecting instrument to make this metaphor work.
As a casual player, sideboards are part of the game and par for the course. Control decks, in particular, need sideboards against atypical decks like land-destruction or creature-less decks.
I never sideboard in casually magic. I only do when we both decide that we are going to. It makes you a better player not to sideboard and have to find ways to win a tough game 1. During game 2 my opponent and I usually talk about our sideboard options and what would be good. But we keep playing with our starting 60.
But I do have an exception. When I play Dredge. I always sideboard.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
LONG LIVE LEGACY
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Do you feel it is acceptable to sideboard when your opponent has none? The question arose from the following experience:
Our first game was pretty close but I won. We were both playing decks that we were testing. We had this conversation at the end of the first game:
<****> gg
<johnnocox> gg
<johnnocox> whew you were on the brink of beating me the whole game
<****> yeah I would beat you if I had chosen a better deck
<johnnocox> do you want to switch decks?
<****> no I like to finish my best of 3s
The next game went by in relative silence, but I won that one as well.
<****> gg
<johnnocox> gg
We both switched decks, me to "I'm the King" and him to a Land Destruction deck. We played a very quick game without much time for talking, and he beat me soundly.
<johnnocox> gg
<****> gg
Next game in the match I start sideboarding to deal with his deck.
<****> sideboarding against a guy without sideboard? very noble of you
<johnnocox> says the guy playing LD
<****> you're a ***** you play control but when the other guy plays it you run to your sideboard and call it "mama" don't have the balls to play it without sideboard?
<johnnocox> I don't know why you don't play a sideboard
<****> well
<johnnocox> kp
<****> I think it's lame it's kind of a rule of reasonability to don't sideboard if both players don't have sideboard but you don't care about that
<johnnocox> a lot of people would say the same of land destruction My personal philosophy is play the best game you can
<****> yeah yeah
<johnnocox> that's why I don't think there is anything wrong with your strategy
<****> keep telling that to yourself
We play a couple of turns and he's keeping us both at 1 or 2 mana. With Boom and Small Pox.
<****> the thing is without the help of your sideboard your deck isn't good enough to beat mine
<johnnocox> with out the help of your deck your deck isn't good enough, that's what I just read
<****> that's because you're stupid
<johnnocox> loi
<****> I mean it must be the case if you have that kind of interpretation problems
<johnnocox> The sideboard is a part of the deck
We play a few more turns, and I'm starting to get a foot hold. Back at one land thanks to Stone Rain and friends but with Semblance Anvil in play that's not much of a problem.
I beat him game 2:
<****> gg anyway
And he leaves. So much for finishing his three's
What do you think is it "kind of a rule of reasonability to don't sideboard if both players don't have sideboard"? Or is it just the same as playing a deck that's better than your opponents?
GModern Belcher
GGreen Deck Wins
3I'm the King
RBlazeTron
Casually, no.
In my experience, a large number of casual players do not have a sideboard. If I pull out a sideboard, it would be like playing a deck that was specifically designed to hose his. This is not just "playing a deck that's better".
And this applies no matter what the opponent is using, which is why I hate playing against graveyard based decks in casual (ichorid, animator).
Imagine this: player A has leyline of the void in the sideboard. Ichroid player B has no sideboard.
Player A: Oh, look at that, leyline in my opening hand! Another game?
(next game)
Player A: No leyline in my opening hand. Looks like I mulligan. Whelp, there's the leyline! Another game?
(next game)
Player A: Leyline opening hand! This is fun!
I may hate ichorid, but to me player A is being the dick here.
edit: incidentally, I also dislike wishes in casual, especially wishes that access entire collections/binders.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
If this was against someone really new to the game I would understand, but he just looks like an idiot.
Yes, another list of decks sig.
R Daretti, Scrap Savant
WBR Zurgo Helmsmasher Equipment
BBB Erebos, God of the Dead Goodstuff
UBG The Mimeoplasm
URG All Creatures Animar, Soul of Elements
WB Teysa, Orzhov Scion sac and combo
WUB Sydri, Galvanic Genius
WUG Rafiq of the Many Aggro-Control
UBR Nekusar, The Mindrazer
WRG Mayael, the Anima
Casual:
BB Ad Nauseam Combo
BB Burn
I've been playtesting DGM standard on Cockatrice recently, and if my opponent hasn't built a sideboard yet for their new creation, I won't bother swapping cards in and out during the match.
If you're playing competitively and your opponent is negligent in not bringing a sideboard, you should definitely use one. However, if it's just a casual game there's really no point. The only exception would be if I'm playing a slow janky experimental deck to begin with and my opponent's deck is a significantly more fine tuned tournament ready deck giving him a strong advantage. In that case my opponent would likely want to best challenge I could offer, though chances are if he was playtesting for an upcoming event, he would probably at least have something of a sideboard prepared or proxied.
I agree, in casual you should keep things as level as possible, which means if one person doesn't have a sideboard the other shouldn't either.
But what are your feelings on a more competitive match?
GModern Belcher
GGreen Deck Wins
3I'm the King
RBlazeTron
I play tournaments and even with our competitive decks between rounds we don't side if a player doesn't want.
To be clear, my personal situation was testing for tournaments. (This guy was kind of a jerk, I wouldn't have played against him for fun).
GModern Belcher
GGreen Deck Wins
3I'm the King
RBlazeTron
_
Competitvely, I'd raise an eyebrow and then proceed to sideboard.
I consider playtesting to be casual, so I wouldn't play against someone I found unpleasant. For one thing, playtesting against a friend gives you another pair of eyes that can tell you if what you're doing is suboptimal against his deck.
If it were someone I liked playing against, I'd only bring a sideboard if we make an understanding that I'm playtesting with them. And I still won't SB if it completely hoses him (like the situation a posted above).
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
If we're venturing into the realm of "well it's casual so the rules of a sideboard don't exactly have to apply" then everything about this game goes out the window. Enjoy playing against my Charizard while I cast Exodia on turn 1 from my 10 card Chancellor of the Dross deck. I can accept that a playgroup might have some house rules, but this was very likely an online game of magic against two total strangers with no specific "house rules".
Then again, when I have done testing on trice (sadly lost mine and cannot dl it any more) or MTGO I advertise the the fact that I am playtesting competitive or casual.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
If I intended to test my SB from the beginning, and my opponent didn't like that, I'd simply play with someone else.
My deviantART; if you're interested in alters, PM me!
BUT if i'm play testing and really need to test out the SB against certain matchups then yes i would SB. i dont see the reason not to. some decks are really weak to some matchups pre-board.
As far as casual games not intended to test a deck for a tournament, sideboards get a little more dicey. However, for a format that includes them, I've no issue with Wishes... so long as the Wish is only pulling from your sideboard.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Sideboards are a part of the game and they are encouraged to be used. Without sideboards there would be little flexibility for decks.
Anybody who complains about sideboards should reconsider not playing M:TG (competitively) or any other game that gives you the option to sideboard or substitute cards/objects/etc.
*I would raise an eyebrow on sideboarding in EDH/Commander, though.
Do you mind if i use this in my signature? I literally "lol'ed when i read this lol
But on topic, my friend used a sideboard before I started to play competitively, and seeing his sideboard and how he brought in certain cards against certain decks helped me be able to build a proper sideboard. So I think you have every right to bring in a sideboard against any deck, even if it hoses the other player. Just after the 3 matches, switch to another deck. Thats what me and my friends did and it worked well. We always just had manners about it... unlike certain people lol
Thanks you very much DarkNightCavalier for the Sig.
1. If you were testing and specified 2/3 or SB then I think its clear you should use it. You are testing, after all (although testing against someone with no board doesn't exactly help much).
2. Even if it's purely casual, there are a lot of cases which you just really don't have a chance without boarding. Dredge comes to mind, It's really not even worth playing against without grave hate. There are some matchups that are WAY unfair without being able to board, and I feel like it's just as bad as boarding against someone without a sideboard.
Most of the time, though, it's not cool to SB unless both people have one.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Legacy
WW Death and Taxes WW
Modern
WBMartyr-Proc BW
But I do have an exception. When I play Dredge. I always sideboard.