thewoof2's picture
By: thewoof2, Christopher Gallon
Mar 13 2014 12:00pm
0
Login to post comments
2283 views


Post-Restriction Analysis

One thing is certain, people's opinions on the latest restrictions will vary, so I am going to offer my thoughts and present a framework to help communicate how I judge the restriction impacts. 

To start, I think we can all agree, one measure of success from the announcement is whether the daily events are firing.  Before the announcement we fired the Saturday 9:30 EST event most weeks.  Since the announcement 3/8 was the first event not to fire in a while, and we came dangerously close to not firing on 2/15.  So I have to say, it is harder to get events to fire and hopefully the 3/8 event was an outlier but overall participation in DE's is slightly down comparably.  One thing I didn't expect is many of the semi-vocal players who wanted classic restriction(s), and got it, are still not showing up for daily events.  Maybe they wanted the restriction for casual play but it is surprising to me that casual play was their intention.

With events out of the way let's focus on gameplay.  As I said in prior articles, I feel that match-up luck has become a major factor in going 3-1 over 2-2 or 4-0 over 3-1.  I am saying this as a factual observation, not as good or bad, I will give my opinion on good/bad after making my case. 

Belief #1:  Increased Deck Diversity

I submit that since the restrictions the decks submitted in a DE are more diverse than ever.  Previously (last few months before announcement) when joining an event you had a high percent chance of facing these 4 decks:  STAX, Affinity, Oath or Dredge.  Since the announcement, that has dropped significantly, in fact if I had to make a guess I would say that prior to the announcement most events had 12 out of 16 people running STAX, Affinity, Oath or Dredge and now it is more like 6 people.

Belief #2:  Increased Sideboard Needs

After game 1 completes, people want cards they can sideboard in to deal with their opponents decks more effectively.  Building on belief #1, I submit that the increased deck diversity in events leads to more sideboard needs.  For example, before you knew you would most likely face an artifact deck, so packing 4x Energy Flux in a sideboard made sense.  Now the chances of facing an artifact deck have decreased and playing a deck like white trash have increased, making it less desirable to pack those fluxes.  If I am on Oath of Druids, what do I pack that extra mass artifact kill card or Massacre?

Belief #3:  You have to take a greater "chance"

Because the sideboard card limit has remained at 15 and due to the above beliefs, you have a higher likelihood of facing a deck where your sideboard is not equipped for your opponent than ever before.  Previous to the restrictions, it was normal to see 5-7 anti-dredge cards, 4-5 Oath of Druids hate cards and 4-5 mass artifact hate cards in the sideboard.  And this was effective, because chances were you would face these decks.  Nowadays that strategy is not nearly as effective because there is a real chance you won't face STAX, Affinity, Oath or Dredge multiple times or even once.

Belief #4:  Match-up luck means more than ever before in going 3-1 over 2-2

When building and deciding on what deck to bring to an event because of the beliefs above we are forced to "cheat" on hate we normally would want, for instance to "cheat" on say dredge hate in favor of some other card to help combat a different deck.  In this case, if I don't get matched up with dredge for the event then I am more likely to money or win the event.

Luck is part of magic, and in many ways luck is what makes magic fun.  Some people will really enjoy this new increased match-up luck because with it comes more diverse decks and a chance to get matched up favorably to your sideboard.  My opinion differs, I personally am not as big a fan of match-up luck.  For me, I like the randomness of magic but I prefer when I have some control over it.  For instance, I like having mana cards (unlike Hearthstone's mana system) even though that means I can get mana screwed because I feel I have some control over it by how many mana producers I put in my deck.  Match-up luck on the other hand I have no control over.  The system will decide who my opponent is and I have no control over it.

In terms of other impacts, I also feel the beliefs above are in large part why affinity is still a strong deck in the format.  One of the key reasons Lodestone Golem was so important to affinity is it stopped mass hate cards like Energy Flux and Seeds of Innocence for that crucial late game turn allowing you to finish them off.  Now the issue is with the beliefs above people are just not packing as many cards like Energy Flux and Seeds of Innocence because of the increased sideboard needs.

Are the restrictions backfiring?

Again, that is a personal preference question, and every person will have their own answer but to me the answer is YES.  Even though this actually helped Affinity (one of my deck's of choice) in many ways by eliminating a tough STAX match-up (with their recent packing of Null Rod), I feel the restrictions backfired because events are seemingly harder to fire and I am not a fan of match-up luck.

Framework Analysis

So this discussion got me thinking, I do not have the history of magic pertaining to the genesis behind the creation of the sideboard and the 15 card limit.  The need for having a sideboard is quite evident, you need answers to certain niche archetypes that without a sideboard would make beating them near impossible (e.g. Dredge).  But what about the 15 card limit?  Why did WOTC decide on 15 and why is it constant for all match play regardless of format?  The reason I ask is from the above analysis I feel sideboard card limit is a discussion to be had.  So let me state my case for a potential change for us to discuss.  In my mind, to determine the optimal number of sideboard cards, the greatest factor to consider is the number of tier 1 decks in the format.  Don't get me wrong there are other factors to consider for sure, but I think this is the largest.  Before moving on one key term I used was a tier 1 deck, this of course is subjective, but the idea is a tier 1 deck is one that people consider a top deck for the format that has the potential to win each and every event.  I suggest that the greater number of tier 1 decks the larger the sideboard should be and vice versa.  This just makes sense assuming the sideboard is created to provide a player with post game 1 sideboard options.  Put another way, if a format has only 2 to 3 tier 1 decks then there is less a need for a sideboard to beat that small number of top tier decks.  Having a variable sideboard card size (which changes much like the ban lists) seems to me that ideal way to limit match-up luck.  Then again, maybe WOTC likes match-up luck in Magic and this is only an issue to me.  What are your thoughts, let me know in the comments!

Classic League Week 5 versus Ancient Mariner

Key Commentary:

  • Game 1 he had mana issues coupled with my LD which held him down.  Due to his revokers I had a little trouble but was able to get the win.
  • Game 2 he played an early Genesis Chamber which I am always fearful of in the mirror and I think it hurt him in the long run by giving me too many creatures.

I win my week 5 of the Classic League, 4-1 and in the Invitational!

Woof