Cunning Wish and Tuning

[jpmeyer]

This is kind of messy, but try to bear with me.

I was inspired to start this based on the thread in the Vintage Forum "Solving the Dreamer's metagame" and the quote

Quote By running Cunning Wish I'll screw up my sideboard too much to be able to get an advantage when my opponent sides in 5-8 card in hate.  I need the sideboard space, and the maindeck disruption will hopefully be good enough to stop my opponents.

I first thought about the actual process of sideboarding, in that you are replacing the cards in your deck.  I thought about how with decks like Keeper and Hulk that run Cunning Wish sideboards (and to a lesser extent, Mind's Desire decks with Burning Wish,) are so streamlined that usually there really just aren't that many cards that you'd want to cut.  Even if they wanted to, Hulk really wouldn't be able to fit in 4 Deeds and some Smothers much like how Tendrils couldn't pack in 8 Blasts.  There just isn't room because good decks should be tight decks.

Since good decks should be tight decks (and since good decks by their very nature should not need to side in many cards since they should have lots of good matchups,) this generates the space for Cunning Wish.  Similarly, there's the idea in deckbuilding theory that the best decks often times are the decks that contain the largest concentration of the format's most powerful cards.  The corollary to this is that usually when a deck is centered around using all of the format's most powerful cards, only a small space is available for a kill mechanism.  These theories are important because of the mana acceleration in Type 1 that can allow you to cast these "more powerful" cards much more quickly than your opponent can cast more "fair" cards.  Case in point is Ophidian vs. Jackal Pup.  Ophidian is a more powerful creature than Jackal Pup, in that it has a higher P/T and has a special ability while Jackal Pup has a drawback.  When you look at the total picture though, it's hard to say which one is "better" because of Jackal Pup's much lower casting cost.  However, since the mana acceleration breaks this rule, you get to play your "superior" cards at the same rate.  Since you are playing these cards at the same time as your opponent's weaker cards, theoretically you shouldn't need to side them out against them.

Now, there will obviously be some very easy substitutions.  Deep Anal isn't so hot against Sligh, and Fire/Ice is much better off when it becomes REB games 2/3 against other control decks.  Since we're trying to tighten up our decks, this number should be really low, which at around 6 cards in the SB sounds about right (say 3 cards against aggro and 3 against control.)  The presence of the Wishes cuts down on the potential number of dead cards to begin with, so this number could very well be even lower.  After that point, it seems to me that you would (assuming the deck is tight) only be slightly improving your card quality.  It doesn't seem likely that Hulk would be improving its aggro matchups very much (if at all) if it also was running Smother in the SB since it would probably have to side out some copies of Duress to bring them in, for instance.

I guess what I'm ultimately getting at is that any deck where the main spell type is either Instant or Sorcery should run one of those Wishes since it shouldn't need to side so many cards in against at all.  The Wishes in a sense free up the space for themselves by eliminating the situational cards that would be precisely the kind of cards that you'd side out in the first place.

[MoreFling]

Nice, and totally correct. When playing Hulk, I often side in 3 cards, and take out 3 cards, and mostly leave AT LEAST 2 wishes in. So this is all true.

[Eastman]

You are right, that is what I found in my own experimentation.

Though the utility of a 15 card sideboard is nice... and make no mistake is incredibly useful, it is near impossible to pack the necessary spells for control into a deck upon taking out the wishes. While the SB space is obviously easy to fill, it is very difficult to find suitable replacements in the maindeck.

[Milton]

Quote Since good decks should be tight decks (and since good decks by their very nature should not need to side in many cards since they should have lots of good matchups,) this generates the space for Cunning Wish.  Similarly, there's the idea in deckbuilding theory that the best decks often times are the decks that contain the largest concentration of the format's most powerful cards.  The corollary to this is that usually when a deck is centered around using all of the format's most powerful cards, only a small space is available for a kill mechanism.

What about cards that are situationally powerful?  For example, Energy Flux isn't one of the games most powerful cards by any means.  It's too narrow in scope.  Against certian decks, however, it will win games on its own.  At my last tournament I made the mistake of running Rack and Ruin instead of Energy Flux, thinking that Cunning Wish for Rack and Ruin would be enough.  It wasn't.

Cunning Wish forces us to bastardize our sideboards from time to time, playing with inferior cards simply because they are wishable.  Look at Coffin Purge.  It is inferior to Tormod's Crypt in just about every way, other than that it is wishable.  Yet, even if Dragon is a bad match-up and it is prevalant, we would most likley only run two or three Purges instead of running four Crypts in the board.  

Also, we have a tendency to run three Wishes and we move all of our situational creature kill to the board, along with some card drawing (so Wish is never dead), a disenchant killer and some anti-artifact cards.  This leaves us only two to three slots for non-wishable cards that can shore-up bad match-ups.  COP Red or Deed are cards that come to mind in Keeper and Hulk.

So, if you know your metagame it can be a very good idea to skip the Wishes and pack the maindeck "hate", if you can even call it hate.  If you have a Suicide or Goblin Sligh heavy meta, then three Fire/Ice and a Deed maindeck might take the place of three Wishes and something else in Hulk, for example.  It narrows the scope of the deck but it makes bad match-ups survivable as you don't have to Cunning Wish for Fire/Ice to deal with the first turn Goblin Lackey or Hypnotic Specter.  This also allows you far more flexibility in sideboarding in that you can remove the four Fire/Ice and one Deed in favor of four Crypts or three Energy Flux and another Deed.

[jpmeyer]

Quote What about cards that are situationally powerful?  For example, Energy Flux isn't one of the games most powerful cards by any means.  It's too narrow in scope.  Against certian decks, however, it will win games on its own.  At my last tournament I made the mistake of running Rack and Ruin instead of Energy Flux, thinking that Cunning Wish for Rack and Ruin would be enough.  It wasn't.

There are still slots in your sideboard for cards like that.  It's just that it feels like there's something wrong to me if you need to use 15 slots to shore your deck up all the time.  Around 7-10 usually feels like plenty to me.  Part of this comes from getting diminishing returns from the cards that you're siding in after a point.  Many decks COULD potentially side out Duress against aggro, but it's still a fairly good card there so unless you're bringing in something on the level of CoP: Red it seems like wasted space that you could apply to Wishes.

Quote Cunning Wish forces us to bastardize our sideboards from time to time, playing with inferior cards simply because they are wishable.  Look at Coffin Purge.  It is inferior to Tormod's Crypt in just about every way, other than that it is wishable.  Yet, even if Dragon is a bad match-up and it is prevalant, we would most likley only run two or three Purges instead of running four Crypts in the board.

While I think it's debatable whether Crypt or Purge is better, like I've said above it's more like you should divide your sideboard into two segments.  The first segment consists of cards that you actually side in, and the second segment consists of the Wish targets.  There's also a little bit of blurring from time to time, which works in your favor.  To use an anti-artifact deck sideboard, category one would consist of your Energy Fluxes and category two would be your Rack and Ruins of the world.  The category one cards are almost always better than the category two cards.  However, if you can find the mythical category three cards (like for instance, Artifact Mutation in this example but also cards like StP and REB,) you get to avoid the bastardization.

Quote Also, we have a tendency to run three Wishes and we move all of our situational creature kill to the board, along with some card drawing (so Wish is never dead), a disenchant killer and some anti-artifact cards.  This leaves us only two to three slots for non-wishable cards that can shore-up bad match-ups.  COP Red or Deed are cards that come to mind in Keeper and Hulk.

Just like how I said above that we need to tighten our maindecks, the same holds espescially true for the Wishes.  Trying to find category three cards instead of category two cards (which granted is not always possible,) ruthlessly paring very situational cards, or finding cards that can do multiple roles is the best for this.  For instance, I am probably going to simply cut Fire/Ice from my Hulk SB since between Artifact Mutation, REB, BEB, and Berserk I can kill any creature short of Morphling, Nantuko Shade, and Academy Rector.  Similarly, Naturalize hasn't really been pulling its weight so it might become either a Capsize or Stifle, both of which while not necessarily as powerful at killing enchantments (the only enchantment that you can't handle otherwise that would serve to be a problem is Abyss,) can do more in general (such as stop Maze of Ith.)

Quote So, if you know your metagame it can be a very good idea to skip the Wishes and pack the maindeck "hate", if you can even call it hate.  If you have a Suicide or Goblin Sligh heavy meta, then three Fire/Ice and a Deed maindeck might take the place of three Wishes and something else in Hulk, for example.  It narrows the scope of the deck but it makes bad match-ups survivable as you don't have to Cunning Wish for Fire/Ice to deal with the first turn Goblin Lackey or Hypnotic Specter.  This also allows you far more flexibility in sideboarding in that you can remove the four Fire/Ice and one Deed in favor of four Crypts or three Energy Flux and another Deed.

And this in a way brings me back to one of my initial points, in that you should eliminate the number of dead cards in your deck by playing cards that are "always good."  Fire/Ice is always good because it cycles, but not as good as Swords to Plowshares at killing single creatures.  However, if your environment consists almost entirely of creatures, then Swords to Plowshares (as opposed to say the Cunning Wish that you replaced them with) become "always good."

[DerangedParrot]

JP: Stop playing only T1 and solve other formats *onbc cough onbc* for us.  Growl.

I just think that it's interesting that you all are doing exactly the same thing with hulk that I was doing with extended tog last extended ptq season.  Like at first I had like ten wish targets, and now I'm down to only seven of what I had before and one Stifle to mise desire decks.  And like there's honestly not room to board in more than three cards against any one deck.  Heh.

As soon as you're sideboarding like eight cards in every matchup though, in general, look for a new deck.  Heh.

[Smmenen]

But onbc is so boring and bland.  Where is the fun and passion? I would probably quit the game if I played boring formats like that exclusively.  I certainly wouldn't obsess over the format like I love t1.

Steve

[Eastman]

Cunning Wish is ALWAYS bad in the first few turns...

I don't understand how Cunning Wish can be indispensable when most of control's worst matchups drop their hands before it is 'active'. I'm not saying C-Wish isn't playable, but I think we're kidding ourselves when we say :

1. Cunning Wish shouldn't be restricted
2. Cunning Wish is a good blue instant tutor with a 3 mana cc


I think most of us are good enough players to realize that statements 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, though I've seen both professed as the truth in these forums.

[PsychoCid]

Cunning Wish isn't allowing anything to dominate, nor is it causing a lack of balance.  I see Cunning Wish as quite the opposite: it allows decks to -get by-.  Barely surviving is hardly dominating. =)

Yes, you -can- say it is a form of a tutor, but if you were to be so strict with the 'tutor = restriction' train of thought, all wishes, Diabolic Tutor, Rhystic Tutor, Gamble...even Ring of Ma'Ruf should be restricted.  It's easy to see that this isn't quite so bright.

The point of the b/r list is to keep has many things decently viable as possible.  Control is granted a full four Cunning Wish and it is -not- dominating.  Tog runs less and is -not- dominating.

I really don't think there's anything to be argued for/about the restriction of Cunning Wish.

[Eastman]

I agree in that I think it would be obvious if the Wish were dominating/deserved restriction. I think that  #2 above is the erroneous statement.

[David Hernandez]

JP,

in response to your original comment:

Quote ...any deck where the main spell type is either Instant or Sorcery should run one of those Wishes since it shouldn't need to side so many cards in against at all.  

i agree.  I look at the wishes as a way to potentially play with 75 total cards during each match.  Its true that the SB should be sectioned, but the "potential" exists to have 71 cards usable against the opponent.

the utility that the wishes provide is extraordinary.  The ability to reach into "thin air" and pull out a game turning or game-winning card should not be ignored.  

this forces us to be more creative (and careful) in the building of a sideboard so that we can use the Wish as a tutor for the tech that will win the game.  This will help avoid the situation that Milton pointed out:

Quote Cunning Wish forces us to bastardize our sideboards from time to time, playing with inferior cards simply because they are wishable.

i believe that even restricted wishes have a place in the top tier decks.

dave.

[Azhrei]

My sideboarding with Hulk generally consists of:

"Do I bring in my two Plaguebearers or not?"

"Do I need Artifact Mutation in this matchup?"

"Okay, I'm adding in 2 REBs."

The rest of my sideboard is better to Wish for in almost every case. The Plaguebearers are the only non-Wishable cards I use, and while I admit they are not necessarily better than Deed, Plaguebearers have worked wonders for me against Mask decks, which are the major archetype I actually fear. I've had really good experiences with them, and since I am not presently trying to fit in any new cards they get to stay.

I did make the Naturalize to Capsize switch to free up a slot though, for all the same reasons JP proposes.

Honestly, the most difficult thing I find is where to fit REBs versus control-- because your whole main deck beats control already. It's so tight that there are no dead cards at all. I LOVE the fact that there are so many decks looking to board in 5+ cards against Hulk, because that means that not only do I win game one, but their deck stops doing what it should in games two and three because they have diluted it so much. A good example of this is the Eight Blast Sligh plan, which didn't work well because Balance, Mind Twist, the Abyss, and Fire weren't blue and REB doesn't deal damage.

Personally, and I think this has become more and more true with the coming of the Wishes, it seems to me that the more cards you find yourself boarding in or being ABLE to board in, the worse your deck is. For example, Mask and Hulk will normally board in 3-4 cards at most, whereas some Sligh decks will side in 10 cards-- a surefire sign that it's not good enough at what it's trying to do in the first place to try for it in the next two games.

Before, the normal strategy was "cut dead cards, add in hate"-- but modernly, good decks have almost no dead cards and don't use specific hate. For example, while Artifact Mutation is awesome against Stax, it is also generically good against any artifact, even Cursed Scroll or whatever, it's no CoP: Red as far as hosers go. Narrowly focused sideboard cards are becoming worse and worse as decks improve and become less susceptible to hate. As a corollary to this, individual cards that can't be used in a wide variety of matchups are also less and less good (like CoP: Red, but not Fire/Ice).

Using CoP: Red again, Goblin Sligh can win the turn after you play a CoP: Red and, having tapped out to play it, you lose with a hoser in play. Similarly, when was the last time anyone lost to Blood Moon or Back to Basics? The fetchlands have really made those strategies much weaker as well-- not to mention that most decks can run on 1-2 mana now anyway.

Blah blah blah, do what JP says.