So wayyy back at the beginning of magic, someone pulled a number out of the blue and said "hmm what about 15 cards you can change during a match"
There wasn't any real testing on this, it was just a random figure. Same goes for the 60 card deck-size. It's very well documented from the time that these were off-the-cuff figures and weren't necessarily optimal in any way.
The game has moved on, players are used to it, and generally people's strategies revolve around these numbers, but there's no reason whatsoever to assume that these randomly chosen amounts are the best for magic. It's just what we're used to.
There are strong arguments that people have made throughout the history of magic, that a 16 or even 18 card sideboard would actually be better. Each time the suggestion is made, the general response has been "that's ridiculous" or "it doesn't solve anything" and it gets swept under the rug. Why? People don't want to have the discussion.
We'll I'm all for the discussion. I've designed games, studied them and I feel from my perspective that the 15-card sideboard is clunky. I mean if we're just picking random numbers, 16 would have been a better number right off the bat (4 playsets) and who knows, maybe 18 is an even better number from an "encourages a healthy metagame" perspective, right? We just don't know. This is the kind of thing that needs some serious testing and I'm seeing a lot of otherwise credible people on this forum simply trashing the idea without thinking about it properly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
Commander is a constructed format with an infinite sideboard. Just saying.
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.
Which is your right and all but I hope your totally happy with the current ban structure in the format because it will continue. Every Tier 1 combo deck will see a ban, it's only a matter of when and it's because, at least I believe this, that in a format with as much diversity as modern, fair decks cannot have reasonable match-ups across the board and combo decks just durdle and win or fold games two and three based on the luck of the draw. Increasing the sideboard not only increases the variance of different answers, but also the probability of drawing an answer when you need it. This would allow the format to, to a degree, further self regulate. Since modern doesn't have access to some of the more powerful regulating cards, a diverse, larger sideboard, may be a solution to keeping more cards off of the ban list and actually help to open up the ban list and get more stuff back into the format.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I'm not going to claim that I know the reason for the initial "60 card minimum deck" or "15 card sideboard," but 15 cards is equal to 1/4 of the amount of the cards in your main deck, or 20% of your whole deck (15/75), so there are reasons for it being this way. This means that in a matchup, you could literally change 25% of your deck. 25%, let that sink in. That's a lot in my opinion.
I have done transitional sideboards before, although probably fewer than I can count on my hands (playing since 1994), but I don't think that they are good for the game and should be discouraged. By changing the number in ONE format, it can confuse some players who play many formats. Also, why should we have to change the SB size just to make Control and Midrange better? There has to be something less dramatic that Wizards can do.
*Lastly, off-topic, I have seen people now complain about the diversity of Modern. I have seen people now want certain cards unbanned or reprints of old cards to be made Modern legal. But years ago when I said that 15% of the meta is perfectly fine and definitely not too much, everyone (at least that I remember; selective memory ) shot me down. They said that it was too much for a format. People said that the cards on the ban list were too powerful and have no place in Modern. They told me that Counterspell would break Modern. Now it seems like the tune has changed. People have now gotten tired of losing to Aggro in 2 of 5 rounds by turn 3, despite having a deck that "preys" on Aggro. I don't know what to tell you, but Modern players wanted a meta of...
10%
9%
9%
8%
5%
5%
4%
rather than a meta of
16%
12%
12%
7%
etc.
And now? We want a sideboard of 20 cards? These are some of the concerns with a format that I used to love, still love, and is second only to Legacy to me (because the complaining in Legacy is less incessant, despite some cards and decks being too good).
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
I may have to start a secondary poll for those that want to keep a 15 card sideboard as to the reason WHY? Maybe with some choices like…
1. It has always been 15.
2. It is 15 in other formats, needs to stay consistent.
3. 15 is enough to handle the metagame.
4. 15 is a nice 1/4 of a 60 card deck.
5. Not sure why exactly.
I think this secondary poll could shed some light on this topic. I'll keep it in mind.
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."
15 cards extra is already 25% of the mainboard 60. I think that is more than enough and even if it did increase to 20, none of the problems with sideboards will be going away anytime soon. If you are having trouble with your deck against other decks, instead of claiming the sideboard needs more cards, try looking at integrating a strategy into your maindeck that will do well in the meta/hate on other decks as a byproduct of deck construction - thus freeing up sideboard slots that you claim are too few.
I may have to start a secondary poll for those that want to keep a 15 card sideboard as to the reason WHY? Maybe with some choices like…
1. It has always been 15.
2. It is 15 in other formats, needs to stay consistent.
3. 15 is enough to handle the metagame.
4. 15 is a nice 1/4 of a 60 card deck.
5. Not sure why exactly.
I think this secondary poll could shed some light on this topic. I'll keep it in mind.
Just a word of insight: rationale is more than often multiply determined. By this I mean to say that decisions are not based on a single point, my reasoning is the derivation of all the answers 2, 3, and 4 + more - not just one of them. Also, don't forget that another reason WHY is that a 20 card sideboard will not fix the problems of a 15 card sideboard, the fix for the problem is in card design - not deck size.
I may have to start a secondary poll for those that want to keep a 15 card sideboard as to the reason WHY? Maybe with some choices like…
1. It has always been 15.
2. It is 15 in other formats, needs to stay consistent.
3. 15 is enough to handle the metagame.
4. 15 is a nice 1/4 of a 60 card deck.
5. Not sure why exactly.
I think this secondary poll could shed some light on this topic. I'll keep it in mind.
Just a word of insight: rationale is more than often multiply determined. By this I mean to say that decisions are not based on a single point, my reasoning is the derivation of all the answers 2, 3, and 4 + more - not just one of them. Also, don't forget that another reason WHY is that a 20 card sideboard will not fix the problems of a 15 card sideboard, the fix for the problem is in card design - not deck size.
Yes I understand on the multiple voting front. What I'd like to know is the main or root reason. Limiting someone to one vote of the above says they have to pick the most important or root cause of their opinion. We get that primary reasoning, we then get why people want to keep it at 15. You open that up to multiple votes it may muddy the waters so to speak. And again I disagree with your assessment on sideboard size. 15 is not adequate currently for many decks in the meta. 20 may not get it there either for some decks but it INCREASES the ability to interact and would bolster competitiveness.
Lastly, who has the ability to fix card design as you mention? It sure as heck isn't us. That is out of our hands, SB size could be something we could affect.
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."
25 percent of the total main-deck isn't really relevant. What matters is cards per particular match-up. If you have 3-5 slots dedicated to affinity, that means you have a total of 12 slots to dedicate to THE REST OF THE META. 12 cards to cover dredge, which you likely lose to without a silver bullet, or tron which beats you down without land hate, fish that you'd love to have choke against, etc etc etc. Sure there is overlap but it doesn't really feel like enough. Then look at it from the combo players perspective. You're on affinity. It falls flat to a couple cards. Post board you know you're gonna see them and you need answers. Is it a permanent or spell you'll have to contend with? You need answers to both based on the deck you're playing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I may have to start a secondary poll for those that want to keep a 15 card sideboard as to the reason WHY? Maybe with some choices like…
1. It has always been 15.
2. It is 15 in other formats, needs to stay consistent.
3. 15 is enough to handle the metagame.
4. 15 is a nice 1/4 of a 60 card deck.
5. Not sure why exactly.
I think this secondary poll could shed some light on this topic. I'll keep it in mind.
are the above reasons a comprehensive list of what you think people have brought up? Because I don't see the 2 biggest reasons on there. First being that this solution is akin to carpet bombing a city to take out 1 man when a well placed sniper is all that's necessary. Second being that it simply won't have the effect you think it will - it will shift things a bit but the exact problem would remain.
I may have to start a secondary poll for those that want to keep a 15 card sideboard as to the reason WHY? Maybe with some choices like…
1. It has always been 15.
2. It is 15 in other formats, needs to stay consistent.
3. 15 is enough to handle the metagame.
4. 15 is a nice 1/4 of a 60 card deck.
5. Not sure why exactly.
I think this secondary poll could shed some light on this topic. I'll keep it in mind.
are the above reasons a comprehensive list of what you think people have brought up? Because I don't see the 2 biggest reasons on there. First being that this solution is akin to carpet bombing a city to take out 1 man when a well placed sniper is all that's necessary. Second being that it simply won't have the effect you think it will - it will shift things a bit but the exact problem would remain.
From what you just said you fall underneath reason #3.
A 5 card increase in SB size is not a carpet bomb. If anything it is a small squad of reinforcements. Its an expansion of a current strategy already in use. And I have NEVER ONCE claimed this is the cure-all for Modern as you insinuate. I am trying to introduce an improvement and possibly only a temporary improvement. It would have EXACTLY the effect that we have been discussing, you just don't want to see it and that's fine if that is what you think and/or feel. You can keep trying to talk me out of it but we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others have their voice and their vote. I'm hoping for well over 100 responses in a weeks time if that is possible. Its looking like 1/4 to almost 30% of respondents would like a sideboard size different than 15. A minority, but not insignificant.
Lastly, the fact that there are ZERO votes (at this time) for anything less than 15 speaks volumes. It says in no way would less than 15 be adequate at all.
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."
Honestly, I don't feel the number of sideboard cards needs to be increased, what needs a serious investigation is the horrible mulligan system the game has had for 20 years.
Honestly, I don't feel the number of sideboard cards needs to be increased, what needs a serious investigation is the horrible mulligan system the game has had for 20 years.
Hey go for it and start a poll. I'd love to vote there as well. I think some real discussion on Modern is in order for health of the format and the more angles we look at the better.
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 may have to start a secondary poll for those that want to keep a 15 card sideboard as to the reason WHY? Maybe with some choices like…
1. It has always been 15.
2. It is 15 in other formats, needs to stay consistent.
3. 15 is enough to handle the metagame.
4. 15 is a nice 1/4 of a 60 card deck.
5. Not sure why exactly.
I think this secondary poll could shed some light on this topic. I'll keep it in mind.
Just a word of insight: rationale is more than often multiply determined. By this I mean to say that decisions are not based on a single point, my reasoning is the derivation of all the answers 2, 3, and 4 + more - not just one of them. Also, don't forget that another reason WHY is that a 20 card sideboard will not fix the problems of a 15 card sideboard, the fix for the problem is in card design - not deck size.
Yes I understand on the multiple voting front. What I'd like to know is the main or root reason. Limiting someone to one vote of the above says they have to pick the most important or root cause of their opinion. We get that primary reasoning, we then get why people want to keep it at 15. You open that up to multiple votes it may muddy the waters so to speak. And again I disagree with your assessment on sideboard size. 15 is not adequate currently for many decks in the meta. 20 may not get it there either for some decks but it INCREASES the ability to interact and would bolster competitiveness.
Lastly, who has the ability to fix card design as you mention? It sure as heck isn't us. That is out of our hands, SB size could be something we could affect.
Look, I'm not sure what makes you think you are the authority on how a 20 card SB would work out so I highly encourage you to do some testing with your local mates or perhaps a group of online competitors that want to see how it goes. I see no reason why you believe a 20 card sideboard would increase interactivity nor why it would somehow bolster competitive play - or solve any of the problems you mentioned for that matter. Gather some data and report back. Until then I can guarantee that the vast majority of players disagree with you.
Also, you've misunderstood the importance of my advice on multiply determined causes. Forcing the choice is going to create a misunderstanding - making the data you collect heavily flawed and ultimately useless. Don't bother.
Like I mentioned get some support to go out there and get some results from a pocket study, then I think you'll have a stronger argument or perhaps you'll understand where the experienced player base is coming from. I won't be commenting again because I'd rather not keep this topic afloat but you are welcome to reply, I will read it. I'd prefer if you came forward with a clearly thought out and strongly supported argument before pushing this topic again. Best of luck.
It should stay at 15. Current sideboard size rewards players who make a broad sideboard that improves your decks weak spots, like sweepers that hit ALL critter decks, more counters to answer ALL threats, and removal for enchantments/artifacts. My favorite sideboard card example is engineered explosives, the card doesnt just hate out any 1 deck, but it can come in in virtually any matchup. It also currently holds a nice leash on decks that typically have hate coming in against them, they have to create a nice balance between answers to said hate AND stuff to improve bad matchups. The current sideboard rules discourages just jamming 4x haye card for deck a, b and c, and instead having a well rounded board. Theres nothing exciting about watching OR playing a dredge match featuring t0 leyline.
Many in here have hit the nail on the head, if the issue is that some decks are operating on such a different axis that literally EVERY deck needs "target affinity player loses the game" cards in there side, the deck should get a ban. If a deck is that strong, then guess what? A ban won't kill it! Only bring it back to earth, opening up sideboard slots for the format, allowing those amazing, general answers to go in and the narrow hate to leave, creating a better performing deck AND a better play experience.
Now, this is not me saying "ban affinity," thats a topic best left to the dedicated ban list thread, where i have voiced my opinion on that exactly before. This is more of a message, if you feel you need more sideboard space, take out the hate and throw in general answers, you would be amazed at how much better your deck becomes
Edit: final note, as to why bans instead of changing SB size
Assuming both would create the same result (decks that require dedicated hate to be brought back to earth being reduced), which is debatable but for the sake of argument we will assume this occurs, we have to look at what occurs as a result of either action. When a ban occurs, some will be upset, some will be ecstatic, but within a month most of those who were upset will have moved on and those who were ecstatic will simply be happy now. The same can be assumed if said rules chsnge occured. However, a ban will only truly affect <10% of the format (no deck over 10% in modern atm) and the true disenters of the ban in the first month will be around 50% max (about what most "do you agree with twin ban" polls showed), while the rules change would affect 100% of the format and is currently sisagreed with by 70% according to this poll. So, when the dust settles, with a ban less of the format is affected and more agree with the move, while with a SB size change everyone is affected, an overwhelming majority disagree with, and leaves new people to the format asking "why is their sb size different?"
I feel that it should stay at 15. Modern sideboarding is completely different than Legacy, Vintage, or Standard. In Legacy and Vintage you can afford to run singleton bullets, and then filter or tutor for them, which allows you to nearly all silver bullets, and a very specialized sideboard. In Standard, you lack the diversity that Modern is known for, so the number of decks you need to side against is much less, allowing for a greater focus on problem matchups.
In Modern, I feel, it is better to find a card that is effective in several matchups, but won't be the silver bullet in any one match up. This leaves your sideboard less powerful than normal, but leaves you much more flexible. Personally, this is the way I like to build, Modern just lacks the filtering and is too wide open for me to consider doing it any other way.
Too me its the sideboarding mentality that need to be changed, not the number of cards. Now, some color combos lack a whole lot of flexible cards like the ones you'd need to sideboard this way, but as time goes on the situation is improving.
I may have to start a secondary poll for those that want to keep a 15 card sideboard as to the reason WHY? Maybe with some choices like…
1. It has always been 15.
2. It is 15 in other formats, needs to stay consistent.
3. 15 is enough to handle the metagame.
4. 15 is a nice 1/4 of a 60 card deck.
5. Not sure why exactly.
I think this secondary poll could shed some light on this topic. I'll keep it in mind.
Just a word of insight: rationale is more than often multiply determined. By this I mean to say that decisions are not based on a single point, my reasoning is the derivation of all the answers 2, 3, and 4 + more - not just one of them. Also, don't forget that another reason WHY is that a 20 card sideboard will not fix the problems of a 15 card sideboard, the fix for the problem is in card design - not deck size.
Yes I understand on the multiple voting front. What I'd like to know is the main or root reason. Limiting someone to one vote of the above says they have to pick the most important or root cause of their opinion. We get that primary reasoning, we then get why people want to keep it at 15. You open that up to multiple votes it may muddy the waters so to speak. And again I disagree with your assessment on sideboard size. 15 is not adequate currently for many decks in the meta. 20 may not get it there either for some decks but it INCREASES the ability to interact and would bolster competitiveness.
Lastly, who has the ability to fix card design as you mention? It sure as heck isn't us. That is out of our hands, SB size could be something we could affect.
Look, I'm not sure what makes you think you are the authority on how a 20 card SB would work out so I highly encourage you to do some testing with your local mates or perhaps a group of online competitors that want to see how it goes. I see no reason why you believe a 20 card sideboard would increase interactivity nor why it would somehow bolster competitive play - or solve any of the problems you mentioned for that matter. Gather some data and report back. Until then I can guarantee that the vast majority of players disagree with you.
Also, you've misunderstood the importance of my advice on multiply determined causes. Forcing the choice is going to create a misunderstanding - making the data you collect heavily flawed and ultimately useless. Don't bother.
Like I mentioned get some support to go out there and get some results from a pocket study, then I think you'll have a stronger argument or perhaps you'll understand where the experienced player base is coming from. I won't be commenting again because I'd rather not keep this topic afloat but you are welcome to reply, I will read it. I'd prefer if you came forward with a clearly thought out and strongly supported argument before pushing this topic again. Best of luck.
We have to agree to disagree and move on. A pocket study isn't needed to know that increasing sideboard size will increase the ability to interact with the Meta. Its simple statistics and if a person can't see that adding cards adds interactions and adds diversity and lines of play I can't help them with their flawed logic skills (or lack thereof). Statistics and numbers don't lie. Increasing sideboard size will increase interactivity. I will leave it at that if you'd like a rebuttal but I'm done with this line of conversation.
I would like to say that we are currently approaching 1 out of 3 that think 15 is not the correct number. Of course that will fluctuate. This is EXACTLY what you are suggesting I should do. I AM retrieving data right now.
And a thanks to all for voting so far. Keep them coming please.
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."
@WarMachinePrime - Maybe the way to market this idea better would be to try it as a variant format. Maybe we could call it "Modern big board" or something like that. I'd advocate for a 30 card board ( I know it's bigger than what we are voting on but I really fail to see the harm as long as the cap is in place) with a 15 card cap and only one opportunity to utilize it between games 1 and 2 (this is to help with logistical issues, i.e. time management etc). If you don't need 30 slots, cool it can always come down. This way we can get rid of the ridiculously obstinate traditionalists and see what would really shake out. I also think we could reduce the banned list for this theoretical format. IDK, just thought I'd throw that out there as an alternative to get people thinking about the game as it could be rather than being stuck on a carousel of irrational appeal to history and emotion.
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.
@WarMachinePrime - Maybe the way to market this idea better would be to try it as a variant format. Maybe we could call it "Modern big board" or something like that. I'd advocate for a 30 card board ( I know it's bigger than what we are voting on but I really fail to see the harm as long as the cap is in place) with a 15 card cap and only one opportunity to utilize it between games 1 and 2 (this is to help with logistical issues, i.e. time management etc). If you don't need 30 slots, cool it can always come down. This way we can get rid of the ridiculously obstinate traditionalists and see what would really shake out. I also think we could reduce the banned list for this theoretical format. IDK, just thought I'd throw that out there as an alternative to get people thinking about the game as it could be rather than being stuck on a carousel of irrational appeal to history and emotion.
I'd get on board for a variant format. Could even call it Modern Plus. Could be a good place to try a better mulligan implementation as well. I think with 30 you would definitely need a 15 card cap. Time management would be an issue. I'm also not adverse to seeing a few things come off the banned list as well. Interesting thought.
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."
Thanks. I like the idea of a new mull rule as well. The current iteration still doesn't do enough imo. Have any ideas on the mulligan? I'm kind of a fan of the life loss angle to it, where you draw 7, call mulligan, shuffle up and draw 7 more and lose a specified amount of life. I wish we could do 1 life per mull but I think that would benefit certain decks to much and with the advent of death's shadow, that may not be an option at all. Maybe for each mull you have to skip a draw step? That might work. You would still be down cards, just not in your opener. Or maybe scry 2 instead of scry 1 and start with one less card. Something along those lines I'd be totally up for. Regarding the 15 card cap, I'm not a fan of transformative sideboards. I want the deck to stay essentially the same game 3 as in game 1. Since 15 is allowed now, I kinda feel it should be fine with 30 total cards as well. What cards would you like to see off the list for testing? I think BBE, Jace, ponder or preordain, twin, and SFM all might be a good candidates to start with (probably allowing them in in multiple waves.) I'm not super picky but I do think access to a larger pool in the sideboard will allow decks to manage powerful cards better. That, coupled with a better mull option should open the format a quite a bit more. Oh, and I like your name (Modern Plus) much better than my idea btw.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern GB Rock U Flooding Merfolk RUG Delver Midrange WU Monks UW Tempo Geist GW Bogle GW Liege UR Tron B Vampires
Affinity Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity EDH W Akroma GBW Ghave BRU Thrax GR Ruric I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I may have to start a secondary poll for those that want to keep a 15 card sideboard as to the reason WHY? Maybe with some choices like…
1. It has always been 15.
2. It is 15 in other formats, needs to stay consistent.
3. 15 is enough to handle the metagame.
4. 15 is a nice 1/4 of a 60 card deck.
5. Not sure why exactly.
I think this secondary poll could shed some light on this topic. I'll keep it in mind.
are the above reasons a comprehensive list of what you think people have brought up? Because I don't see the 2 biggest reasons on there. First being that this solution is akin to carpet bombing a city to take out 1 man when a well placed sniper is all that's necessary. Second being that it simply won't have the effect you think it will - it will shift things a bit but the exact problem would remain.
From what you just said you fall underneath reason #3.
No, I don't fall into #3. Neither statement falls into any of your numbers. My first statement can be summed up by saying that the scope of your defined problem and the scope of your defined solution do not match. That has nothing to do with whether or not I think 15 cards is enough. My second statement is even clearer, that your solution simply does not have the intended effect. That also has nothing to do with whether or not I think 15 cards is enough.
Its simple statistics and if a person can't see that adding cards adds interactions and adds diversity and lines of play I can't help them with their flawed logic skills (or lack thereof). Statistics and numbers don't lie. Increasing sideboard size will increase interactivity. I will leave it at that if you'd like a rebuttal but I'm done with this line of conversation.
This is overly simplistic. Mathematically, introducing the same additional variables to both sides of an equation will result in them canceling each other out. If y=y, then xy=xy. On the surface sure, if your normal sideboard can only help against 5 matches and you gain the ability to affect a 6th matchup then you have personally gained a level of interactivity. But I'm assuming that this intended change will not only apply to you but instead to the entire Modern player base. On that macro level, it will have the same result as the mathematical equation - it will just cancel out. Let's play it out in Magic terms:
There are 19 decks listed on this site as being Tier 1 and Tier 2. Let's just number them decks 1 through 19 so nobody falls into the argument of "such and such a deck would/would not do xyz."
You play deck 10. Right now with 15 card sideboards deck 9 has a favorable matchup against decks 1-4, a slightly favorable matchup against decks 5-9, a slightly unfavorable matchup against decks 11-15, and an unfavorable matchup against decks 16-19.
On April 1, 2017 WOTC announces the expanded Modern SB to 20. You choose your extra 5 cards in such a way as to help your unfavorable and slightly unfavorable matchups. Your first round you face deck 12 and have a more interactive game and win on the back of your new SB cards. Yay! Things are working! Second round you're paired against deck 8, who decided to target your deck with his new SB space. You lose and you had a decidedly less interactive game because of his hate cards. Boo! What happened? I thought things were supposed to be more interactive?
It turns out that your experience is shared by everybody who plays deck 10. Deck 10 now has a favorable matchup against decks 1-4, a slightly favorable matchup against decks 5-7, and 11 and 12, a slightly unfavorable matchup against decks 8, 9, and 13-15, and an unfavorable matchup against decks 16-19.
Well now wait a minute, that's still 4 favorable, 5 slightly favorable, 5 slightly unfavorable, and 4 unfavorable matchups with both configurations, but a few decks have simply swapped categories!
Now, yes, Magic is played out in games and isn't an equation. Decks having more cards in the SB may in fact lead to greater interaction (it would depend entirely on the cards chosen in the sideboards - some cards hate on strategies in a decidedly uninteractive way). But they will NOT lead to the ability to convert that potential (yet still arguable) greater interaction into a greater win percentage. Matchup favorabilities may shift, but your overall win percentage will remain exactly the same.
Changing topics, the reason I state that the scope of your defined problem and the scope of your defined solution do not match is simple. There are no more or less viable decks in Modern than there are in Vintage and Legacy. Both those formats have plenty of linear decks that will kill you if you don't interact. However, neither of those 2 formats are in need of such a drastic change. The difference between the formats is simple. Modern has a more painful mana base, fewer consistency tools, and fewer main deck-able generic answers. The latter two things are fixable with new printings.
You can keep trying to talk me out of it but we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others have their voice and their vote.
I'm not trying to change your mind. I know you simply don't care to. However, I keep seeing misinformation thrown around in here so I'm just attempting to provide a voice of reason that people will see when they read the thread.
The thing is, and yes you're right in that if all things are equal, increasing sb size shouldn't effects outcomes that much because probability works both ways. The reality is though, things aren't equal. The players who understand the game better will have an added advantage. It will reward those who spend time on their deck and their match ups. Its a nightmare for pros because they spend so little time working with modern decks. And then on top of that there is simple variance and chance. Now I understand why you wouldn't want this to be implemented overnight in modern. I'm not asking for that either. Would you consider playing in a variant format with an expanded sb and new mull rules as an experiment? I mean maybe your completely right and this is a total gimmick idea. But come on, WotC just made cars a card type and added a mini-pokemon game with in the game in the next set. Innovation is the order of the day. And tolerance and patience is the price of admission.
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.
The thing is, and yes you're right in that if all things are equal, increasing sb size shouldn't effects outcomes that much because probability works both ways. The reality is though, things aren't equal. The players who understand the game better will have an added advantage. It will reward those who spend time on their deck and their match ups. Its a nightmare for pros because they spend so little time working with modern decks. And then on top of that there is simple variance and chance. Now I understand why you wouldn't want this to be implemented overnight in modern. I'm not asking for that either. Would you consider playing in a variant format with an expanded sb and new mull rules as an experiment? I mean maybe your completely right and this is a total gimmick idea. But come on, WotC just made cars a card type and added a mini-pokemon game with in the game in the next set. Innovation is the order of the day. And tolerance and patience is the price of admission.
You may be surprised to know that I came very close to selecting 16 in this poll instead of 15. I'm not completely against it and sure, I'd enjoy testing it out if I had the time (like, a bit here and a bit there kind of a thing). But this is still a very large change and one that I'm sure WOTC would look at as being risky. Large risky changes need very solid reasons behind them, and I haven't seen any yet.
That said, I also think your first couple of sentences in this post are wrong. You say that the new SB would reward those who spend time on their deck. But ... the CURRENT one does that also. So again, it will simply be a symmetrical and proportional shift with identical end results in terms of overall win percentages.
Wouldn't a larger pool result in larger variance though? I get what your saying, I think, in that essentially regardless the size of the SB, the optimal list will eventually arise and when that happens, a symmetrical and proportional shift would ensue. Is that correct? Also, you say, and I agree, that the current sb rewards players who faithfully play a deck, wouldn't a larger sb reward them more or essentially what you're saying is that it would ultimately be a wash?
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.
Wouldn't a larger pool result in larger variance though? I get what your saying, I think, in that essentially regardless the size of the SB, the optimal list will eventually arise and when that happens, a symmetrical and proportional shift would ensue. Is that correct? Also, you say, and I agree, that the current sb rewards players who faithfully play a deck, wouldn't a larger sb reward them more or essentially what you're saying is that it would ultimately be a wash?
Yeah that's the general gist of it. A bit more complicated than that but that's about it. To the second point, yes, it'd be a wash. Let's say that the "faithful" players are a 7 out of 10 right now and the casuals are a 3 out of 10. With extra SB space available to both groups, the "faithful" players rise to 8 but the "casuals" rise to 4. They're still separated by the same amount.
EDIT: Actually, the "reward them more" question is interesting, and that may be the case. Essentially you're saying that you're giving all players more choices and a better player will make a greater number of those additional choices correctly?
There wasn't any real testing on this, it was just a random figure. Same goes for the 60 card deck-size. It's very well documented from the time that these were off-the-cuff figures and weren't necessarily optimal in any way.
The game has moved on, players are used to it, and generally people's strategies revolve around these numbers, but there's no reason whatsoever to assume that these randomly chosen amounts are the best for magic. It's just what we're used to.
There are strong arguments that people have made throughout the history of magic, that a 16 or even 18 card sideboard would actually be better. Each time the suggestion is made, the general response has been "that's ridiculous" or "it doesn't solve anything" and it gets swept under the rug. Why? People don't want to have the discussion.
We'll I'm all for the discussion. I've designed games, studied them and I feel from my perspective that the 15-card sideboard is clunky. I mean if we're just picking random numbers, 16 would have been a better number right off the bat (4 playsets) and who knows, maybe 18 is an even better number from an "encourages a healthy metagame" perspective, right? We just don't know. This is the kind of thing that needs some serious testing and I'm seeing a lot of otherwise credible people on this forum simply trashing the idea without thinking about it properly.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
GB Rock
U Flooding Merfolk
RUG Delver Midrange
WU Monks
UW Tempo Geist
GW Bogle
GW Liege
UR Tron
B Vampires
Affinity
Legacy
Fish
Goblins
Burn
Reanimator
Dredge
Affinity
EDH
W Akroma
GBW Ghave
BRU Thrax
GR Ruric
I advocate for the elimination of the combo archetype in Modern. I believe it is degenerate and unfun by its very nature and will always limit design space and cause unnecessary bans.
I have done transitional sideboards before, although probably fewer than I can count on my hands (playing since 1994), but I don't think that they are good for the game and should be discouraged. By changing the number in ONE format, it can confuse some players who play many formats. Also, why should we have to change the SB size just to make Control and Midrange better? There has to be something less dramatic that Wizards can do.
*Lastly, off-topic, I have seen people now complain about the diversity of Modern. I have seen people now want certain cards unbanned or reprints of old cards to be made Modern legal. But years ago when I said that 15% of the meta is perfectly fine and definitely not too much, everyone (at least that I remember; selective memory ) shot me down. They said that it was too much for a format. People said that the cards on the ban list were too powerful and have no place in Modern. They told me that Counterspell would break Modern. Now it seems like the tune has changed. People have now gotten tired of losing to Aggro in 2 of 5 rounds by turn 3, despite having a deck that "preys" on Aggro. I don't know what to tell you, but Modern players wanted a meta of...
10%
9%
9%
8%
5%
5%
4%
rather than a meta of
16%
12%
12%
7%
etc.
And now? We want a sideboard of 20 cards? These are some of the concerns with a format that I used to love, still love, and is second only to Legacy to me (because the complaining in Legacy is less incessant, despite some cards and decks being too good).
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)I may have to start a secondary poll for those that want to keep a 15 card sideboard as to the reason WHY? Maybe with some choices like…
1. It has always been 15.
2. It is 15 in other formats, needs to stay consistent.
3. 15 is enough to handle the metagame.
4. 15 is a nice 1/4 of a 60 card deck.
5. Not sure why exactly.
I think this secondary poll could shed some light on this topic. I'll keep it in mind.
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."
Yes I understand on the multiple voting front. What I'd like to know is the main or root reason. Limiting someone to one vote of the above says they have to pick the most important or root cause of their opinion. We get that primary reasoning, we then get why people want to keep it at 15. You open that up to multiple votes it may muddy the waters so to speak. And again I disagree with your assessment on sideboard size. 15 is not adequate currently for many decks in the meta. 20 may not get it there either for some decks but it INCREASES the ability to interact and would bolster competitiveness.
Lastly, who has the ability to fix card design as you mention? It sure as heck isn't us. That is out of our hands, SB size could be something we could affect.
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.
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
From what you just said you fall underneath reason #3.
A 5 card increase in SB size is not a carpet bomb. If anything it is a small squad of reinforcements. Its an expansion of a current strategy already in use. And I have NEVER ONCE claimed this is the cure-all for Modern as you insinuate. I am trying to introduce an improvement and possibly only a temporary improvement. It would have EXACTLY the effect that we have been discussing, you just don't want to see it and that's fine if that is what you think and/or feel. You can keep trying to talk me out of it but we are going to have to agree to disagree and let others have their voice and their vote. I'm hoping for well over 100 responses in a weeks time if that is possible. Its looking like 1/4 to almost 30% of respondents would like a sideboard size different than 15. A minority, but not insignificant.
Lastly, the fact that there are ZERO votes (at this time) for anything less than 15 speaks volumes. It says in no way would less than 15 be adequate at all.
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."
Hey go for it and start a poll. I'd love to vote there as well. I think some real discussion on Modern is in order for health of the format and the more angles we look at the better.
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."
Also, you've misunderstood the importance of my advice on multiply determined causes. Forcing the choice is going to create a misunderstanding - making the data you collect heavily flawed and ultimately useless. Don't bother.
Like I mentioned get some support to go out there and get some results from a pocket study, then I think you'll have a stronger argument or perhaps you'll understand where the experienced player base is coming from. I won't be commenting again because I'd rather not keep this topic afloat but you are welcome to reply, I will read it. I'd prefer if you came forward with a clearly thought out and strongly supported argument before pushing this topic again. Best of luck.
Many in here have hit the nail on the head, if the issue is that some decks are operating on such a different axis that literally EVERY deck needs "target affinity player loses the game" cards in there side, the deck should get a ban. If a deck is that strong, then guess what? A ban won't kill it! Only bring it back to earth, opening up sideboard slots for the format, allowing those amazing, general answers to go in and the narrow hate to leave, creating a better performing deck AND a better play experience.
Now, this is not me saying "ban affinity," thats a topic best left to the dedicated ban list thread, where i have voiced my opinion on that exactly before. This is more of a message, if you feel you need more sideboard space, take out the hate and throw in general answers, you would be amazed at how much better your deck becomes
Edit: final note, as to why bans instead of changing SB size
Assuming both would create the same result (decks that require dedicated hate to be brought back to earth being reduced), which is debatable but for the sake of argument we will assume this occurs, we have to look at what occurs as a result of either action. When a ban occurs, some will be upset, some will be ecstatic, but within a month most of those who were upset will have moved on and those who were ecstatic will simply be happy now. The same can be assumed if said rules chsnge occured. However, a ban will only truly affect <10% of the format (no deck over 10% in modern atm) and the true disenters of the ban in the first month will be around 50% max (about what most "do you agree with twin ban" polls showed), while the rules change would affect 100% of the format and is currently sisagreed with by 70% according to this poll. So, when the dust settles, with a ban less of the format is affected and more agree with the move, while with a SB size change everyone is affected, an overwhelming majority disagree with, and leaves new people to the format asking "why is their sb size different?"
UWRjeskai nahiri UWR
UBRgrixis titi UBR
UBRgrixis delverUBR
UR ur kikimite UR
EDH
RUG Riku of Two Reflections RUG
UBR Marchesa, the Black Rose UBR
UBRGYidris, Maelstrom Wielder UBRG
UBRJeleva, Nephalia's ScourgeUBR
In Modern, I feel, it is better to find a card that is effective in several matchups, but won't be the silver bullet in any one match up. This leaves your sideboard less powerful than normal, but leaves you much more flexible. Personally, this is the way I like to build, Modern just lacks the filtering and is too wide open for me to consider doing it any other way.
Too me its the sideboarding mentality that need to be changed, not the number of cards. Now, some color combos lack a whole lot of flexible cards like the ones you'd need to sideboard this way, but as time goes on the situation is improving.
Cheeri0sXWU
Reid Duke's Level One
Who's the Beatdown
Alt+0198=Æ
We have to agree to disagree and move on. A pocket study isn't needed to know that increasing sideboard size will increase the ability to interact with the Meta. Its simple statistics and if a person can't see that adding cards adds interactions and adds diversity and lines of play I can't help them with their flawed logic skills (or lack thereof). Statistics and numbers don't lie. Increasing sideboard size will increase interactivity. I will leave it at that if you'd like a rebuttal but I'm done with this line of conversation.
I would like to say that we are currently approaching 1 out of 3 that think 15 is not the correct number. Of course that will fluctuate. This is EXACTLY what you are suggesting I should do. I AM retrieving data right now.
And a thanks to all for voting so far. Keep them coming please.
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.
I'd get on board for a variant format. Could even call it Modern Plus. Could be a good place to try a better mulligan implementation as well. I think with 30 you would definitely need a 15 card cap. Time management would be an issue. I'm also not adverse to seeing a few things come off the banned list as well. Interesting thought.
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.
This is overly simplistic. Mathematically, introducing the same additional variables to both sides of an equation will result in them canceling each other out. If y=y, then xy=xy. On the surface sure, if your normal sideboard can only help against 5 matches and you gain the ability to affect a 6th matchup then you have personally gained a level of interactivity. But I'm assuming that this intended change will not only apply to you but instead to the entire Modern player base. On that macro level, it will have the same result as the mathematical equation - it will just cancel out. Let's play it out in Magic terms:
There are 19 decks listed on this site as being Tier 1 and Tier 2. Let's just number them decks 1 through 19 so nobody falls into the argument of "such and such a deck would/would not do xyz."
You play deck 10. Right now with 15 card sideboards deck 9 has a favorable matchup against decks 1-4, a slightly favorable matchup against decks 5-9, a slightly unfavorable matchup against decks 11-15, and an unfavorable matchup against decks 16-19.
On April 1, 2017 WOTC announces the expanded Modern SB to 20. You choose your extra 5 cards in such a way as to help your unfavorable and slightly unfavorable matchups. Your first round you face deck 12 and have a more interactive game and win on the back of your new SB cards. Yay! Things are working! Second round you're paired against deck 8, who decided to target your deck with his new SB space. You lose and you had a decidedly less interactive game because of his hate cards. Boo! What happened? I thought things were supposed to be more interactive?
It turns out that your experience is shared by everybody who plays deck 10. Deck 10 now has a favorable matchup against decks 1-4, a slightly favorable matchup against decks 5-7, and 11 and 12, a slightly unfavorable matchup against decks 8, 9, and 13-15, and an unfavorable matchup against decks 16-19.
Well now wait a minute, that's still 4 favorable, 5 slightly favorable, 5 slightly unfavorable, and 4 unfavorable matchups with both configurations, but a few decks have simply swapped categories!
Now, yes, Magic is played out in games and isn't an equation. Decks having more cards in the SB may in fact lead to greater interaction (it would depend entirely on the cards chosen in the sideboards - some cards hate on strategies in a decidedly uninteractive way). But they will NOT lead to the ability to convert that potential (yet still arguable) greater interaction into a greater win percentage. Matchup favorabilities may shift, but your overall win percentage will remain exactly the same.
Changing topics, the reason I state that the scope of your defined problem and the scope of your defined solution do not match is simple. There are no more or less viable decks in Modern than there are in Vintage and Legacy. Both those formats have plenty of linear decks that will kill you if you don't interact. However, neither of those 2 formats are in need of such a drastic change. The difference between the formats is simple. Modern has a more painful mana base, fewer consistency tools, and fewer main deck-able generic answers. The latter two things are fixable with new printings.
I'm not trying to change your mind. I know you simply don't care to. However, I keep seeing misinformation thrown around in here so I'm just attempting to provide a voice of reason that people will see when they read the thread.
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
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.
That said, I also think your first couple of sentences in this post are wrong. You say that the new SB would reward those who spend time on their deck. But ... the CURRENT one does that also. So again, it will simply be a symmetrical and proportional shift with identical end results in terms of overall win percentages.
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
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.
EDIT: Actually, the "reward them more" question is interesting, and that may be the case. Essentially you're saying that you're giving all players more choices and a better player will make a greater number of those additional choices correctly?
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