[Sideboarding] How do you use a sideboard?

[GAUDARD]

When you take a deck to a tournament do you know exactly what comes in and goes out for the top x decks?

Do you just copy a list and hope to figure out how the creator used the sideboard?

When metagaming, how do you figure how much 'hate' to bring in against a matchup?

When playtesting how often do you play with sideboards?

--- My answers


It would be best to know what exactly goes in and comes out. Granted there are some decks that are the same type of deck but are up to 10 cards off the regular list which can change how you would sideboard. I try to do this, but I've not yet perfected it as I just never have enough time to sit down and figure out what to board, and what to take out, and then to memorize it.

Generally when I netdeck, I copy card for card and try to figure out what the creator was thinking with maindeck choices and sideboard choices. But if I can't figure out what card x is in the deck for it will get cut for something that I know how to use.

If I expect a field of 50% of something then I can guess that half of my matches will likely be against this deck. But depending on the matchup depends on the sideboard. If I feel that I have a 70% win against a deck, and that I can board in x cards against it and take that up to 90% then I would rather use the slots for card x than have a 10% win against a deck and board card y against it to bring my win up to 20%.

It's been said before that 2/3 of your games are likely to be sideboarded, so that should mean that when playtesting 2/3 should be also. But when I'm playtesting it takes that much longer to get ready, and currenly I'm playing Ubastax so I'm still trying to learn the main inside and out, so I've only played a handful of games post board. But once I feel I'm playing the maindeck well, then I'll start playing with boards.

[Juggernaut GO]

I focus my sideboards on the decks I am weak against, and what I may happen to face at the tournament.  That being said, I still am yet to find a sufficient answer against gifts.  Tormod's crypt and REB's have been just ok, and not extraordinary.

[Moxlotus]

I know exactly what I will take in and out for each major match--gifts, CS, Uba, 5-color Stax, oath, fish, dragon, belcher, and storm

I pretty much never have a card in my board that comes in in only 1 of those matches.

If I have a match thats just bad--I'll just accept the loss and focus on matches that are pretty close to even to try to push myself over the edge there.

[Harlequin]

In addition to what decks are your tough matchups you need to know your "lock-out" cards.  What can your opponent side in to make you want to cry.  You must have sideboard answers to those types of cards.  This is why many decks have 3 mana bounce spells for low charged Chalice or ways around it like engineered explosives, and why stax needs reb's on the side to kill energy flux, or why dragon needs needle to stop tormods... You need to know what cards spesifically prohibit you from winning the game, and have SB answers to those cards spesifically.

[Scoops666]

Question #1
I go to a tournament with a very good idea on how to board, but nothing is ever set in stone. I use game 1 as a means to see how this persons deck is slightly different than "the standard build." That way I don't audibly board out a card that would actually be useful against them.

Question #2
I don't copy a sideboard verbatem. My sideboard cards are icluded based on my comfort level of a match and play style. The creator of the net-deck may not have had as much, lets say, Dragon in his meta as I do, so I may want to include some Ground Seals where he didn't feel he had to (Just as ana example)

Question #3

I focus my sideboards on the decks I am weak against, and what I may happen to face at the tournament.

Perfect answer.

Question #4
I do use Sideboards in playtesting, but not 2/3 of the time. I usually test a match-up a lot, figure out what i need to put in the board for i, then sideboard to see if the cards are actually useful. It probably ends up being 50/50

[GAUDARD]

I pretty much never have a card in my board that comes in in only 1 of those matches.

So when building your sideboard do you specifically look for cards that are going to be good in multiple matchups? Do you still pass up sideboard cards that are going to win you the game if they resolve in a certain matchup?

why stax needs reb's on the side to kill energy flux, or why dragon needs needle to stop tormods...

And you aquire this information from testing? So how is your testing done, do you have your dragon adept tell you what beats the deck, or do you have someone who can play most of the decks in the format play them all and then a group of you figure out what is the best answer?  As someone who played dragon, Pithing is good but it most definatly does not completly shut down Crypts.

You need to know what cards spesifically prohibit you from winning the game, and have SB answers to those cards spesifically.

So if you are playing Dragon for instance and you know your opponent can bring in: Ground Seal, StP, Ray of Rev, Tormods Crypt, ect... how do you determine what to have in your board for that hate? Any deck can run Crypts, so you should basicly always bring in Pithings with that reasoning. Then if you run Rays you can bring those in against Ground Seal see what I mean?

[warble]

When I make a sideboard I generally try to minimize the number of wasted sideboard slots.  Your deck probably could use a sideboard of 30 or 40 cards but you're limited to 15.  The purpose of scouting is to minimize the number of games where your sideboard is unapplicable, I can't say there is ever a time I don't have 15 amazing cards, it's the other 20 amazing cards that give me fits.

Taking cards out is generally decided by the first game, and the typical sideboard expectation of the opposing deck.  That being said, the skill aspect would be tricking your opponent to think you took cards out that you didn't.  Have that darksteel colossus in against 4 welders?  Maybe you want to leave him in since you're sideboarding in darkblast and 3 pithing needles.  Or maybe you expect to just race that deck and don't sideboard in the pithing needles because you're running a faster clock and you know he's sideboarded out two welders because you have hate.  How do you practice against that?  Find a good playtest partner and sideboard again and again until you know the matchup.  You're only as good as your best opponent typically, exceptions do occur, but your skills with the sideboard are a learned trait, not one that you can just study and then apply.  Sure, people get lucky, but to know your sideboard isn't going to be easy.

Also, I sideboard less on easier matchups typically because deviating from the maindeck plan is a terrible idea and since you're talking about netdecking, the more you sideboard the higher probability you mess up.  I took pentavus out and boarded in tormod's crypt against dragon once.  I will never do it again.  The best sideboard plan is loads of testing and experience.  Planning and studying just are not an adequate substitute.

When playtesting, I like to play in 3 game matches.  It makes me more comfortable being able to go with aggressive sideboarding after losing game 1 versus safe sideboards after taking game 1, as well as practice deviating on game 3.  And practice going aggressive game 2, and mulliganing, and all that other junk that comes up in tournaments but not casual play.

[Moxlotus]

When building a SB, I first start out by going through my deck and going "6 cards can come out against Stax, 3 against Oath, 5 cards against Dragon..." and build my SB from there.  This is contrary to how many people build their decks--starting with a SB and seeing what cards they can take out.  I see what I can take out and figure out numbers from there--this is how I end up with 1 and 2-ofs in my sideboards.

Yes, I will pass up an autowin card in only one match for a more versatile card for multiple matches.  However, I really don't think there is that many autowin cards for any deck.  That said, I can justify things like Caltrops against Ichorid.dec since it can come in against fish.

Yes, I pass up Spawning Pit against Oath for something more versatile.

[Vegeta2711]

When you take a deck to a tournament do you know exactly what comes in and goes out for the top x decks?

Do you just copy a list and hope to figure out how the creator used the sideboard?

When metagaming, how do you figure how much 'hate' to bring in against a matchup?

When playtesting how often do you play with sideboards?

#1: Um, duh. That's the point. If you didn't, you screwed up.

#2: No. See #1.

#3: Um, figure out how terrible the match is and how many weak cards you can afford to bring out.

#4: Less than half my games. In other formats I test a solid 50/50 or so, but in Vintage I just don't care all that much about boarding.

[Thug]

but in Vintage I just don't care all that much about boarding.

Agreed,

First of all I think sideboard don't have all that much impact on Vintage matches.
Personally I hardly ever test with sideboard, except when I need to try out a new sideboard card.
Most of the sideboard cards are pretty common and it's not hard to know what effect they will have.

I often let game 1/2 be factors in how I sideboard, and I don't think this is worse than thinking up list before the tournament.
This way you can adapt to your opponents play style, individual card choices etc. Especially game 3 pre-made list are crap, you need to adept on what your opponent might have done etc.

Also a huge factor can be whether you are on the play or on the draw.
Making up list is just generalizing, whats wrong with a little thinking in between games?
I think this will eventually lead to better results, although you might have to get used to it.

Koen

[yespuhyren]

For me, I ALWAYS make my own SB, I never copy, for instance, look at what my SB has been for a while, compared to what the list for SB was.  Most of the decisions were based on efficiency, but also by synergy.  I hate playing cards that are potentially dead.

Uba Stax

Netdeck
4x Pyroblast (I complained in the thread about its CC of 1, and dissynergy with chalice)
3x Viashino Heretic
3x Tormod's Crypt (I complained in the thread about its dissynergy with null rod)
2x Duplicant
3x Maze of Ith

My SB

3x Viashino Heretic
4x Pyrostatic Pillar (More efficient against combo, not hurt by EOT Hurkyl or Rebuild)
4x Fiery Temper
2x Duplicant
2x Open (currently pyroclasms, as I'm in a heavy aggro environment)

[moxpearl]

I know exactly what I will take in and out for each major match--gifts, CS, Uba, 5-color Stax, oath, fish, dragon, belcher, and storm

I agree.  Personnally, I build a grid of my fifteen sideboard cards and the above match-ups, so I know exactly what will come in and out for each of those match-ups.   I memorize the list before the tournament.  If you see a card that you're predominantly boarding in, you may consider maindecking the card.  Also, you should generally know what certain decks will board in against you.

I would never netdeck a sideboard (well, I would also recommend not netdecking a main deck), but you should certainly tailor a sideboard to your own play style and the metagame in your area.

First of all I think sideboard don't have all that much impact on Vintage matches.

You have to be kidding.   It may seem like sideboarding doesn't make a difference on any individual game, because the format is so fast.  And improving your odds in a game by say 10% may not seem material.  But over the course of a tournament, that difference will be the difference between top 8'ing or not.   

Knowing your sideboard well also allows you to slam your whole sideboard into your deck and pull out the necessary fifteen.  This way your opponent has no idea what you're doing.  Sure, the atmosphere at a vintage tournament is often more casual and care free.  But, if you're out to win a piece of Power, the more you plan ahead, the less chance you'll leave to making a sideboarding mistake at a tournament.

[forests failed you]

I disagree.  Making a grid and knowing exactly what should come in and out every match up may make you better than a scrub who doesn't know how or what is being boarded in and out; but it doesn't leave you very much room for flexability.  It also makes you predictable.  I prefer to have sideboards that answer concepts, stratagies, and particular threats that worry me, rather than a specific game plan for say Gifts, Slaver, Combo, Oath, and Stax.  Every build of these lists are different and you can't board against them all the same way.  Therefore, saying I will board in these particular four cards for these particular four cards isn't necessarily the best plan.  If any of you guys have looked at my sideboards lately, you'll notice that I usually play approximately twelve different cards in my board.  The reason is that I want to be able to answer lots of different threats in different ways.  This makes it much more difficult for an opponent to play around your sidebaord plan, because they are expecting the same old stuff, and you have lots of different things.  With the amount of tutors in Vintage I really see no reason for most styles of decks to ever play more than three of the same card in their board.  So far as my experience has taught me, Vintage is not a format of redundancy like Standard or Extended, rather it is a format of flexibility.  Having lots of options available and having multiple game plans at one's disposal is key and allows you to win more matches.

For instance with the Slaver deck I'm playing right now.  I have at least three different board plans that I can execute depending upon what type of Gifts list they are playing.  Also, the key is that they may not be seeing the same sideboard plan in game three that they saw game two. 

It is also relevant that during sideboarding I always shuffle my entire sideboard into my deck and then pull out the appropriate fifteen cards that I don't want every time.  This way my opponents don't know how many cards I brought in against them, so that cannot anticipate the hate card density that I will be attacking them with.  For instance, when my oponent boards in five cards against me;  I assume at least two to three are REBs, maybe one is Darkblast, and the last cards is maybe a Tormod's Crypt in against a Gifts player.  I may be wrong, but chances are I'm probably right; because weak players have the 'set sideboard sratagy mentality.'  Therefore, I can with a fairly high amount of certaintly assume what my opponent's plan is. 

My point is:  Dare to actually try playing the game a little bit.  Even though most of the 'good players' in the Vintage community scoff at it and think everything can be deduced to a science or logically be transformed into an 'objectively' best maindeck, sideboard stratagy, or particular play.  There is room within the confines of this game and this format to actually out play your opponents by doing unorthadox things and trying out strange new plans.  The element of surprise is much hotter and more powerful than that of predictability and playing what is the 'assumed or agreed best' plan.  I'm usually much more upset to see something I wouldn't expect to be sided in played against me than something I know is comming.  For instance in a control mirror, you can't wreck somebody with REB.  You can win the game by ending a counter war, sure, but if you have the Mana open they know it is possible you will play it.  They weigh the risk you've got it and decide whether or not it is worth it.  But you can wreck somebody with Stife.  I can't tell you how many times I've been fighting a counter war over something and they Fetch for a REB or a Drain Mana and I stifle it to end the war.  That is wrecking somebody, or hitting a fetch that they need early or a welder activation. 

Just my random thoughts on the subject.

BTW:  I was at a Mox tournament a few weeks ago and I watched a Slaver player from Toronto fucking anhilate a Stax player with sideboard Solem Similacrums.  I posted saying it was hot tech; and at least four 'Vintage Adepts' said it was shit.  One even said I was joking and trying to mislead people.  The point is;  Vintage isn't cut and dry;  there is no right or wrong; and there is no black and white.  That is why we actually sit down and play the matches out.  The fresher and least expected your sideboard stratagy is against an opponent, the more likely you are to do something they are not planning for and wreck their entire plan.

[moxpearl]

I disagree.  Making a grid and knowing exactly what should come in and out every match up may make you better than a scrub who doesn't know how or what is being boarded in and out; but it doesn't leave you very much room for flexability.  It also makes you predictable.  I prefer to have sideboards that answer concepts, stratagies, and particular threats that worry me, rather than a specific game plan for say Gifts, Slaver, Combo, Oath, and Stax. 

Yes, of course, you need to be flexible in your sideboarding according to the nuances of each deck you play, but we're talking about creating a starting point before you go to a tournament.   If you're at the advanced state where you know the top ten decks by heart and you can pick up the subtle differences between decks, that's great, but most players at a Vintage tournament are not at that level.  Even starting with a grid helps you understand how each of the top tier decks are designed, what their win conditions are, and what their weaknesses are.  Then ultimately, I completely agree, once you get to the point of understanding the metagame quite well, then you should do exactly what you spell out in your response.  However, it's my opinion that most players overestimate their ability to make decisions on the fly, and when it's game-time, they often make the wrong decision.

In any case, I also agree that surprise is undervalued in today's game.  That's why netdecking is usually a terrible choice, because the good players will know exactly what's in your deck and how to play around it.  Substituting a unique win condition or "out" that they're not expecting can make the difference in beating an opponent in a normally bad match-up.

[Eddie]

It is also relevant that during sideboarding I always shuffle my entire sideboard into my deck and then pull out the appropriate fifteen cards that I don't want every time.  This way my opponents don't know how many cards I brought in against them, so that cannot anticipate the hate card density that I will be attacking them with.

I believe it's even better not to put your entire sideboard in the deck, but a higher amount than you need. e.g. If I want to maindeck 4 cards against a certain deck, I will put in 6 or 7, and take 2 or 3 back out. This way, my opponent might misjudge the number of hate I bring in. When you put all 15 in, they just don't have a clue. When I bring in 7 cards, they will try to figure out what the hell I boarded in and fear a lot of hate for their particular deck.

That said, I believe it's not bad to have a certain plain against each archtype, but it doesn't mean you have to follow it. Just a general direction is nice.

[pyr0ma5ta]

I believe it's even better not to put your entire sideboard in the deck, but a higher amount than you need. e.g. If I want to maindeck 4 cards against a certain deck, I will put in 6 or 7, and take 2 or 3 back out. This way, my opponent might misjudge the number of hate I bring in. When you put all 15 in, they just don't have a clue. When I bring in 7 cards, they will try to figure out what the hell I boarded in and fear a lot of hate for their particular deck.

That said, I believe it's not bad to have a certain plain against each archtype, but it doesn't mean you have to follow it. Just a general direction is nice.

I've never seen this done, but I'll definitely consider it.  It'll give some people pause when it looks like I bring in 12 cards against them.

[Evenpence]

I take it out to dinner and when I walk it home, I give it a kiss on the cheek real nice.

They always invite me in then.  That's how I use a sideboard.

Seriously though, I don't have a set chart that I use for 'this goes in for this,' etc.  If I see something peculiar, I'll expect him to be playing more peculiar things of the same sort, so I'll usually side in hate for that.  If I'm playing against Stax, even if I know he doesn't like Viashino Heretic, I'll still side in Fiery Tempers, for instance, because although they're insane against Heretic, they're good against welders too.

[Rapalaman1]

It is also relevant that during sideboarding I always shuffle my entire sideboard into my deck and then pull out the appropriate fifteen cards that I don't want every time. This way my opponents don't know how many cards I brought in against them, so that cannot anticipate the hate card density that I will be attacking them with. For instance, when my opponent boards in five cards against me; I assume at least two to three are REBs, maybe one is Darkblast, and the last cards is maybe a Tormod's Crypt in against a Gifts player. I may be wrong, but chances are I'm probably right; because weak players have the 'set sideboard strategy mentality.' Therefore, I can with a fairly high amount of certainly assume what my opponent's plan is.

I completely agree with this strategy and promote that anyone that has never used this style of sideboarding should try it. I like this style of sideboarding because you may find although there are specific cards that you may want to board in for particular matches, some cards in your sideboard might be more efficient in game 2 than some maindeck cards.

The element of surprise is much hotter and more powerful than that of predictability and playing what is the 'assumed or agreed best' plan. I'm usually much more upset to see something I wouldn't expect to be sided in played against me than something I know is comming. For instance in a control mirror, you can't wreck somebody with REB. You can win the game by ending a counter war, sure, but if you have the Mana open they know it is possible you will play it. They weigh the risk you've got it and decide whether or not it is worth it. But you can wreck somebody with Stife. I can't tell you how many times I've been fighting a counter war over something and they Fetch for a REB or a Drain Mana and I stifle it to end the war. That is wrecking somebody, or hitting a fetch that they need early or a welder activation.

I will second this with full force. Pulling out random or unorthodox plays from the sideboard can single-handedly win every game passed the first. And not only that, when you wreck someone with something out of totally left field, it makes some good shock and awe value.

[EnialisLiadon]

First, the idea of shuffling the entire side in the main and then pulling 15 out sounds like a marvelous idea, and could potentially help my horrendous sideboarding skills...

But I usually dedicate my sideboard to what I know I'll face at the tournament, while trying to use cards that apply splash damage to multiple decks; cards such as Tormod's Crypt, Echoing Truth/Rushing River/etc, Elemental Blasts, etc.  I personally prefer being extremely versatile rather than strong in some areas and weak in others.  I'm not sure how this approach fares compared to the "accept loss vs a bad match-up, kickass in a good match-up," however...

[GAUDARD]

First, the idea of shuffling the entire side in the main and then pulling 15 out sounds like a marvelous idea, and could potentially help my horrendous sideboarding skills...

Sounds like everyone likes this method of bringing in cards, but...

I can't think of an example in Vintage, but not too long ago in Standard there was a Tooth and Nail deck that ran a switch, where you brought in like 8 cards against Red Deck Wins. And if this was your usual method of sideboarding, and you ran it with this deck it was almost a dead give away that you would be running the switch.

I think I prefer the method of adding a few more than what you are really using.


Anyway, back to the question at hand. Those of you who said you like to have a versitile board with answers to strategys rather than decks do you know exactly what cards to take out against a strategy? For example if you are playing Ubastax and you are playing against TPS you know Duplicant isn't very good so it comes out. Do you have some type of list in your head or even on paper of what you want to take out?

[EnialisLiadon]

I had a mental list of sideboarding strategies for my slaver deck, and even decks that weren't on it could be sided for--it was relatively intuitive.  For example, my side was...

1x Darksteel Colossus--synergy with Tinker!  came in for fish, oath--anything where a quick win could shore up the matchup
1x Duplicant--oath, mostly
1x Sundering Titan--gifts, mirror...anything with lots of duals
2x Pyrite Spellbomb--i was expecting a lot of fish, also worked against other aggro
2x tormod's crypt--general hate
2x Echoing truth--oath, dragon, DSC, general utility
3x rack and ruin--stax, artifact-heavy stuff.  also came in against a WTF deck to kill jittes and factory workers once
3x red elemental blast--stuff with blue
((side is many months old, pick apart my thought process, not the side))

As you can see, I geared my board to deal with problematic match-ups and what I expected to see at the tournament while using cards that deal with a wide range of threats,

[mattdeballer]

i like the idea of shuffling the whole sideboard into your deck and taking out 15 cards. where i play, people know everyone's sb cuz everyone is a regular, and knows what people sb in and out against most decks. it would be good to kind of throw people off with a sb that may or may not be to what they expect.

[sundering jerk]

Sideboarding will decide wether you win or lose a tourney

First thing to keep in mind. If you run enough tutors you don't need excessive inflexible hate.

Priority. Second can your deck compete with the holy trinity: gifts, stax, dragon. 2nd can it deal with other big boys welder, oath, fish. 3rd will it handle the random scrubs

I hope this example helps. When I was at the last waterbury I was piloting a new Fish(terrible idea-just not broken enough). In my sideboard I had

Flexible:
2 disenchant
3 swords
4 tormods crypt
not flexable:
3 serenity
3 sacred ground

I was definitely sure their was going to be  lot of workshop at waterbury, so rater then mess with my deck and find somewhere to shove kitaki I decided to see how game on went and scoop after I saw the build(so I can MEDDLE with it). I scooped fast because I'm sure to loose game1.  Every card on that list is good against stax.
FYI - serenity is such a fauking good card against stax.

But for anyone who sees this post, tell me what you think I should side against gifts because that's what Jiggly Puff used to knock me out of table 11 and cause me to not top 16.

[rureddy31]

BTW:  I was at a Mox tournament a few weeks ago and I watched a Slaver player from Toronto fucking anhilate a Stax player with sideboard Solem Similacrums.  I posted saying it was hot tech; and at least four 'Vintage Adepts' said it was shit.  One even said I was joking and trying to mislead people.  The point is;  Vintage isn't cut and dry;  there is no right or wrong; and there is no black and white.  That is why we actually sit down and play the matches out.  The fresher and least expected your sideboard stratagy is against an opponent, the more likely you are to do something they are not planning for and wreck their entire plan.

I actually think I know the player you are referring to. I also play with Solemn in my board. Not only is he good vs. Stax, but he is also great against fish, and useful against random aggro decks. That was one of my reasons for including the 3rd Island instead of a 4th volcanic. I want to guarantee AT LEAST 2 land searches with Solemn.

[Rock Lee]

I know this has been said a few times before, but I run a mix of the set-sideboarding of MoxLotus and the flexability of moxpearl. I usually run with themes [narrow win condition/graveyardabuse/aggro/artifacts] based on what I feel is a meta threat, but still know that I can mix up and change my set sideboarding options within those themes. Often I will side in all of one theme, and a few of another. So I still know how many cards are "coming out" but I have options.

[forests failed you]

I really like playing with an extremely versitile sideboard.  More than likely an opponent can anticipate what you are going to bring in against them and will be prepared to deal with it game two.  However if  you are bringing in several different cards it makes it much more difficult for them to predict what it is exactly you are doing on the other side of the table, and also what cards are more than likely in your hand.  I play with sideboards that tend to look like this.

11 - 12 one ofs
1 -2 two ofs
possibly one three of at most

[Revvik]

Do you just copy a list and hope to figure out how the creator used the sideboard?

Am I really the only person who has successfully done this?  At the February RIW tournament I had literally never even goldfished a sideboard game with my deck, deciding to just 'wing it' instead - going with whatever I felt best at the time (this may seem stupid, but I needed to work towards my mount in WoW).