Major Rule Change Coming Soon: 20 Card Sideboards & Encouraging Rogue Decks

[Clark Kant]

There's a lot of speculation regarding MaRo's statement in Inquest that a major rule is about to be changed in Peanut, the next set.

A lot of possiblities were thrown around and here, I want to discuss one in particular.

The change to 20 card Sideboards as was speculated I think would be a really good thing for all magic formats.

Here's the reasoning...

Currently in every single format, there are a select few decks that are extremely synergic and powerful, decks that have such strong cards and interactions that they dominate their respective formats.

To illustrate, in Legacy, the top decks are Goblins & Threshold/Solidarity/Iggy Pop Variants to a lesser extent. In any tournament, you can expect as much as 2/3rds of the field to be made up of these decks

Then there are literally thousands of rogue tier two decks that though well tuned and decent, still face difficulty in getting top 8s. There is just nothing in them that can compete with the raw synergy and pure aggressive speed of Aether Vial, Goblin Lackey, Goblin Matron, Seige Gang and such cards. Just to have a decent matchup against goblins, certain decks such as Vile Horror or Pox and many others for example are forced to devote around 12 of their 15 sideboard slots to that one matchup and in doing so don't have enough slots left to combat the other decks. Everyone expects these popular overplayed decks to show up, but the rogue decks rarely have the sideboard slots to fight off more than one or two of them.

A larger, 20 card sideboard would inherently favor these rogue strategies. The more slots decks have to devote to hating out the dominant decks, the more successful they will be at doing so. Meanwhile, rogue decks by definition are unexpected and the top decks will never have enough slots to properly have tools against all of them.

Larger 20 card sideboards would also inherently work against Storm based combo decks, Ichorid decks and generally any extremely fast decks that win within a few turns simply because the decks themselves are built very tightly and don't have many cards they can side out and still function well. It is healthy for these decks as well to not become overplayed as having to face them multiple rounds in a row in unappealing.

Thus, 20 cards sideboards would encourage diversity and well tuned rogue builds over the decks that everyone else plays. This in my opinion would be a very good thing. People running into a different competitive deck each round of a tournament is a good thing, a sign of a healthy format. It's also a good thing for stores and collectors as well as it would mean more strategies, more cards in general being played and many cards that allow for many different rogue strategies would be worth money rather than just a few cards that are extremely popular and priced highly.

Lastly, this is probably an irrelevent point to most people, but just to throw it out there, a 20 card, or even a 16 card sideboard is inherently more asthetic than a 15 card one. As MaRo explained very well in this article... http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/daily/mr28, people find symmetry and consistency inherently asthetic, even if they don't realize it. A person will not find it consistent, or asthetic to not be able to run 4x copies of each card in their sideboard, especially since they can build a deck with 20 land and 10 4x copies of each card in their maindeck.

[Sam Best]

Really 15 cards is plenty.

[diopter]

a.) Is there a link to the article text available?
b.) Where are the possible rule changes being discussed?

[Machinus]

Text or summary would be very helpful here.

[Pathian]

I doubt that 20 card sideboards would be something that MaRo would be referring to (though I could be wrong, having not read the article). Sideboards are a concept unique to tournament/organized play, which MaRo doesn't seem to have ever involved himself with in his role at WotC. Sideboards aren't a game rule, text search the comp rules, the word "sideboard" doesn't appear once, not even in reference to the Judgement Wishes

[Matt]

Twenty card sideboards would make Wish decks insane, because they get a Wishboard AND can fit in 4 Compost or whatever hate.

[ReAnimator]

I think it will probably have something to do with the mulligan rules. I personally hate the current mulligan rules and think they are the weakest part of the game. There are a lot of formats where mulliganing on the play or even at all, just means you are going to loose the game 90% of the time, (ever mulled to 5 on the play in draft? good luck with that)

[Klep]

MaRo is on record as hating the idea of mana burn.  If this is a major rule change that he is responsible for, I would be least surprised for it to be that.

[Moxlotus]

MaRo is on record as hating the idea of mana burn.  If this is a major rule change that he is responsible for, I would be least surprised for it to be that.

Well, that would make the whole "my opponent forgot about Drain mana, what happens?" thing nonexistant.  It would also help Shop decks cast cheaper artifacts off Shop.

[Elric]

The first thing I thought of when I saw "major rule change" was "no mana burn."  Just the other day I was thinking about what role mana burn serves in magic.  A few cards clearly interact with mana burn in a particular way (it forces you to be cautious with Mana Drain; Power Surge relies on mana drain to have any real effect, and so on), but overall it doesn't seem like a major part of the game.  I've never read anything by MaRo about mana burn, though, so I don't know why he dislikes it.

[LotusHead]

There's a lot of speculation regarding MaRo's statement in Inquest that a major rule is about to be changed in Peanut, the next set.

A lot of possiblities were thrown around and here, I want to discuss one in particular.

The change to 20 card Sideboards as was speculated I think would be a really good thing for all magic formats.

Here's the reasoning...

Currently in every single format,

This is all speculation.

I played in a time when there were no tournaments, no tournament rules, no 4-of rule, no 60 minimum deck size rule, no sideboard, no restricted list.

The rules were very close to what Limited is without the whole drafting or sealed element.  Got 6 Sol Rings? Play them all!

I terrorized my roommates with a 41 card Channel Fireball deck. Multiplayer. Often. (only 2 Channels, not completely busted).

If there is a rules change, it wont be a Sideboard Rule.  That's strictly DCI issues.

Mana Burn? Maybe.  I think the current rules make sence, but maybe Mana Burn will only happen at the end of each turn (and not the various phases), but still...

I am sure we will have at least 3 weeks heads up to bitch and moan or celebrate with joy this new rules change.

Till then, we are all just guessing and getting nowhere.

[Pathian]

I think it's fairly silly to even be discussing this at this point with so little detail to even speculate on. "Peanut" is not the next set, "Pop" (Future Sight) is, and even if the author meant Pop, that's still months away. Peanut won't even be the next set after that, it's the next Big set and won't be released until after 10th ed

[Nastaboi]

I always think that when MaRo speaks about "rules", he means rules on how they design cards. So I think that "Major rule change" is really a design rule change. They will desing the set the way they've never done before. Just hope we're not getting another Homelands, though they've improved so much ssince then that it's not possible for them to make such a flop again came what.

And really, 20 cards sideboards add little good to the game imho. That'll just lesser the skill needed on deck tweaking and metagaming, and would make metagame less diverse making more decks easier to hate out.

[Anusien]

MaRo is on record as hating the idea of mana burn.  If this is a major rule change that he is responsible for, I would be least surprised for it to be that.

But in TGDS, didn't they talk about how they dislike mana burn, but they have to keep it because it's been in the game forever?

[Harlequin]

If it is in fact 20 card sideboards that seems like a bit of a double edged sword.  Obviously, decks will be able to incorporate more options or perhapse more focused options in the board.  But at the same time 20 cards is 1/3 of a deck... which means Transformational Sideboards could potentially become more popular ... which weakens how good the opponent's sideboard is. 

[Klep]

But in TGDS, didn't they talk about how they dislike mana burn, but they have to keep it because it's been in the game forever?

So has every other major rule of the game.  If MaRo was indeed talking about a major rules change to the game, I think getting rid of mana burn is most likely.

[Gandalf_The_White_1]

MaRo is on record as hating the idea of mana burn.  If this is a major rule change that he is responsible for, I would be least surprised for it to be that.

But in TGDS, didn't they talk about how they dislike mana burn, but they have to keep it because it's been in the game forever?

Don't forget that major rule changes back in 6th Edition, not to mention the Legends rule chance in Kamigawa Block.  Just because a rule's been around for a while doesn't mean it can't/won't be changed.  That said, most of this is just speculation anyway, but who knows?

[jcb193]

I think he is more referring to some fundamental rule that we all hold about Magic, but isn't necessarily true.

For instance-

Force of Will- totally changed how we considered counterspells (didn't need 2 blue).
Misdirection- totally changed that fact that you had to be careful when gaining an advantage
Chalice of the void- maybe it wasn't a great idea to run all the moxes you can (later refuted)

and pardon me, I don't remember the names, and starcity is down for me, but the two following cards:
1.) Cards referrings to "mulligan" in their card text.  letting you redraw your hand
2.) A card that lets you put a land into play before your turn

These are all events that made us stop and rewrite the rules in our head.  Obviously it is something major this time.  Combat rules?  Both players starting with lands in play?  Drawing more cards to start?  New mulligan rules? 

What are the aspects of magic that everyone hates the most?  Color-screw, mana light, mulligans, 2nd turn disadvantage (even though it might not be), life?  MAro is always trying to optimize Magic, so it could be anything.

[Norm4eva]

I'm pretty sure that expanding the potential for the sideboard just makes the Wishes way better; transformational sideboards aren't all they're cracked up to be.  I suppose a 20 card SB would make it way easier, but how many really good decks are only 20 cards apart from each other?  That's the problem with trans-sideboards, you're going from a finely tuned deck to a shabby one while the opponent's playing the same deck only with a few dead cards.  It might work in Vintage what with decks that are basically 30 Good Cards, 29 Broken Things, 1 Yawg Will, but it doesn't do much for the other formats.
But yeah, even though speculation is just idle chit chat, I'm sure it has something to do with mana burn.  It's no coincidence that virtually no other CCG has a system of determining when/how/which spells you can cast that copies MtG; in Vs you just play things face down and they're "lands" and IIRC L5R just keeps all the land in a different deck and you start with like 3 already in play.  Maybe I'm a jerk but that always seemed too easy to me, like taking too much of the random card drawing aspect out of a card game makes it less appealing.  May as well play a board game at that point.  *shrug*  Anyway, mana burn is a vastly underrepresented and generally unexpressed part of the game, moreso than any failed mechanic or keyword that ever came into the game.  Getting rid of it opens a few interesting doors, at that; ever take 3 damage from an Ancient Tomb because of your mana overage? :/

[Mr. Nightmare]

I suppose a 20 card SB would make it way easier, but how many really good decks are only 20 cards apart from each other?

Gifts, Pitchlong, and Control Slaver.

[Cross]

Are we sure its something drastic? Why is this not just a change from fading to vanishing? Looking at the mtg.com preview articles, unless I missed one they have not previewed one of the vanishing creatures yet.

[The Atog Lord]

They discussed this particular change on magicthegathering.com already. In the end, WotC decided against retroactively changing Fading into Vanishing because it would cause too much confusion. Although most cards like Blast-O-Derm would remain the same, some cards would be functionally different. For instance, there would be an extra counter on Parallax Nexus, and you could choose to destroy the card at any point by removing all of its Time counters, rather than having to wait until upkeep. In other words, Wizards' didn't want to implement any functionality-altering errata on cards in this case.

[Godder]

IIRC L5R just keeps all the land in a different deck and you start with like 3 already in play.

Not exactly - in L5R, players start with their stronghold in play, and all strongholds generate gold which is used to pay for things. Each player has two decks, Dynasty (Events, Personalities, Holdings) and Fate (Actions, Spells & Kihos, Followers, Items). They've also lessened gold-screw by creating a holding called "Gifts and Favors", which can be searched for and put into play from the Dynasty Deck by bowing (tapping) the Stronghold if you put no holdings into play this turn.

[Anusien]

Out of curiousity, what would be happening in that set to make them change either of the things suggested?  20 card sideboards is just as arbitrary as 15, and why remove mana burn now, when it's not relevant.

[silvernail]

I'd have to guess it will be something no one has mentioned yet, since the proposed changes either : arent handled by Wizards, or don't make any real sense that would warrent the change.

[Matt]

Maybe something about Enchant Worlds?

[Luecifer]

perhaps allowing the player who wins the die roll to draw on their first turn, thus changing the way people view mulligans without actually changing the rule.  just another speculation but its something not talked about yet.

[diopter]

perhaps allowing the player who wins the die roll to draw on their first turn, thus changing the way people view mulligans without actually changing the rule.  just another speculation but its something not talked about yet.

I don't think so. That would be even more distorting to gameplay everywhere than 20 card sideboards.

[mrieff]

I haven't read the article in question, but if it specifically mentioned major I can't imagine it being the removal of mana burn. Thats by no definition a major change.

[Toad]

They will change the colors to Pink, Purple, Yellow, Cyan and Magenta.