Hello everyone!
So we’re back again to talk about Pauper deckbuilding. In case you missed out on our first installment, allow me to quickly fill you in. In it, we covered three pinnacles of deckbuilding: having a game plan, understanding deck composition, and comprehending the principles of the mana base and the mana curve.
This time around, we are going to take things a step further. We’ll be discussing the fundamentals of Pauper sideboarding (why it’s so incredibly important, how it should be thought about, and how to increase its potency). Just like in Part I, I’ll be doing my best to provide relevant links to further reading, as I feel they shed quite a bit of light on these respective deckbuilding topics.
Fundamentals of Deckbuilding: The Sideboard
I am choosing to focus today’s article entirely on the sideboard because I think it’s an incredibly important component of successful deckbuilding. It’s also just really, really cool! The sideboard is where a lot of killer (and perhaps goofy) tech is often found. Additionally, this is the place where alternate game plans are sometimes harbored, and extreme “hate cards” get to lie in wait.
With each sideboard being restricted to 15 cards, it’s crucial that we work toward getting the most out of our considerably scarce and precious slots. This brings me to the very first principle of sideboarding: have a sideboard! You might think that I’m trying to be humorous here, but the fact of the matter is that many players “test” decks by playing a bunch of single games on MTGO without constructing or even thinking about a sideboard. I believe this is a moderately toxic habit, and I would encourage everyone not to do it. Just don’t.
In any type of competitive Pauper arena, sideboarded games occur at least 50% of the time. This already makes them equally as important as Game 1s (with some exceptions at play based upon matchup, who won the die roll, how much time’s on the clock, etc.). We are all aware, of course, that in many additional instances sideboarded games will account for 66 (.6 repeating) percent of the match, making sideboarded games actually more significant than Game 1s.
The other reason to have a sideboard “from the jump” is this: the deckbuilding process should naturally incorporate and consider the coincidental 15 sideboard pieces. Patrick “the Innovator” Chapin writes on p. 110 of his prolific eBook Next Level Deckbuilding, “The sideboard of a deck should be part of the equation during all of deck design… Once you’ve determined what basic strategy you’re going to play, it becomes more important to shift more focus to sideboards.” As deckbuilders, we want to strive toward constructing 75 card packages rather than 60 card ones.
Sideboard Resources and General Philosophy
For starters, here is a basic, easy to grasp resource you can use when approaching sideboard construction. It is written by Gavin Verhey, who was referred to last time for his masterfully composed DailyMTG article “Zero to Sixty”. This one is entitled, unsurprisingly, “Zero to Fifteen”.
I’ve also previously covered the topic of sideboarding on the Pauper’s Cage podcast. The episode in question contains many of my personal thoughts on sideboarding.
Check out the Pauper’s Cage episode!
My general philosophy and practical approach to sideboarding involves taking out only the most ineffective cards in a matchup first, and then bringing in superior replacements. This prevents us from going “overboard” (or in other words bringing in too many cards) for Games 2 and 3. Bringing in too many cards can actually reduce our deck’s level of potency and consistency by diluting our fundamental game plan, composition and mana curve (thereby undoing everything we worked so hard on in Part I).
You will see this method of sideboarding applied in any of my Pauper gameplay videos, hundreds of which are available on my YouTube page.
So how do we actually apply this method? Here is a bare bones example. Let’s say that we’re an aggressive deck and we’re sideboarding against something very controlling. As we talked about last time in our deck composition portion, aggro decks generally tend to be more threat-dense and removal-light, with the opposite being true for control decks.
We can realistically assume that our opponent will be keeping in a high density of removal spells in order to interact with us favorably. Moreover, there’s a good chance that they’ll be adding to their suite of removal for the sideboarded games. This means that we should maintain, if not increase, our number of threats more often than not. Doing so ensures that our primary “beatdown” game plan is neither hampered nor diluted.
Knowing that we want to maintain our ideal threat capacity (and that our control opponent will be typically bolstering a lower creature count), it is often correct to take out some number of removal spells, as they won’t be as useful for us in control matchups. Typically drawing one or two removal spells for a blocker or high impact creature is fine, though in some cases we’ll want more (there are a lot of good blockers hanging around in the current format, namely Sea Gate Oracle and Cuombajj Witches).
I’d like to supplement this portion on sideboarding with an article that falls in line with much of my overall sideboarding philosophy. It was featured back in 2010 on the GatherMagic website, and it’s called “Seven Tips for a Better Sideboard”. I highly, highly recommend it!
Versatility of the Sideboard Slot
When building sideboards within the context of Pauper, we need to keep a very important piece of information in mind. A vast majority of the time within the Pauper metagame, the most prominent decks will only occupy about 10-15% of the overall field. Smaller percentages will apply to the “lesser” decks, resulting in a rather diverse and unpredictable environment overall. Decks we are expecting to face will tend to be encountered far less than they would be in formats with narrower card pools. This means that most of our sideboards should incorporate cards that have multiple applications, rather than relying solely on narrow, “silver bullet” type precision.
A card like Hydroblast works incredibly as a sideboard option because of how much it can actually do for its wielder. You’ll notice that Hydroblast is just about ubiquitous in any kind of blue Pauper sideboard. Here’s why: it’s obviously extremely powerful as a Counterspell or Vindicate for U, but what’s more is the fact that Hydroblast has got a corner office in the flexibility department.
At the moment Hydroblast is putting in a lot of work as a life gain spell (since it counters anything cast in the Pauper Burn decks), and as a handler of four of Affinity’s most devastating cards (those four cards being Atog, Fling, Galvanic Blast and Pyroblast). It also Doom Blades the most relevant threats in Izzet Fiend (or Eye Candy, as referred to by JustSin), Kiln Fiend and Nivix Cyclops. Any Goblins shenanigans can also be dealt with, and the Kuldotha Rebirths and Pyroblasts of “Boros Kitty” may also be worth Hydroblasting. That’s a lot of screen time for what more or less counts as a “hate” card!
I’d like to juxtapose the above Hydroblast example with a Daily Event list’s sideboard that I feel could use some improving. I’ve left the player anonymous so as not to make this seem like any kind of personal attack. This is merely some constructive criticism intended to improve overall sideboard effectiveness.
Mono-Red Burn by Anonymous
|
| ||||||||
The first thing I’m going to point out about this board is that between Electrickery and Martyr of Ashes, there are seven slots dedicated to sweeping away creatures. That is a lot of sideboard real estate (just about half of the board) to dedicate, even in a creature-dense field.
I understand that Electrickery has the added benefit of hitting fliers, but I would almost certainly cut the Electrickery/Martyr of Ashes numbers in one direction or the other. The primary reason why has to do with avoiding the dilution of our primary game plan.
Burn is pretty much a racing deck, with its “finish line” being the infliction of 20 damage upon the opponent’s dome. Every card cast that doesn’t contribute to this race will by default be slowing the deck down. Sometimes this is a necessary evil. For instance, if the opponent has an Armadillo Cloak or Hopeful Eidolon strapped onto a Gladecover Scout, then yes, a timely Martyr of Ashes is just about what the doctor ordered. Even so, seven sideboard slots for those sort of occasions is probably overdoing it (especially when neither of these cards actually helps deal damage to the opponent, as our game plan kind of requires).
The other card I question in this particular board is the Magic 2013 common Smelt. There’s nothing particularly wrong with the card, as it is a strict improvement over Shatter, but then again so is Smash to Smithereens. The difference (and it is quite a big difference in my book) is that Smash to Smithereens equals another 3 points of damage, and therefore lines up perfectly with the rest of our proactive cards.
The damage clause of Smash to Smithereens gives it far more viability in situations where critical artifacts aren’t present. I say this because we can always opt to “waste” a copy on a borderline relevant Prophetic Prism (for instance) with the reassurance that we’re at least getting closer to winning the game. This is not true of a card like Smelt.
Here is a list from the November 12th Daily Event that I think displays a bit more sideboard flexibility.
Mono-Red Burn by sneakattackkid
|
| ||||||||
A Robust Sideboard Example
Now that we’ve gone over some of the side boarding basics, let’s look at what I would consider a noteworthy and well-rounded sideboard:
Dimir Control by someoldguy
|
| ||||||||
What really makes this sideboard possible is the three copies of Mystical Teachings in the main deck. Thanks to Teachings, we can consider every 1-off in the board as having a “virtual” four copies. As long as we’re okay with waiting about five or six turns to resolve those spells, this will equate to a toolbox that pretty much any control mage can appreciate.
The 1/1 split between Dispel and Negate is something I really like to see. There is a lot of overlap between these cards (think Counterspell wars, for instance), but also just enough handiness on Negate’s end to warrant the diversification. Lynchpin sorceries like Assault Strobe, Corrupt and Flame Rift teamed with swingy enchantments like Curse of the Pierced Heart, Ethereal Armor and Journey to Nowhere mean that Negate has the potential to do a lot of heavy lifting.
Coffin Purge can be pressed into service to kill Ghostly Flicker, Grim Harvest, (half of a) Loyal Cathar, Rancor or whatever else is annoying us at the time.
There is also a tutor-able “catch-all” in the form of Repeal, which can really help when facing down permanents we may not have anticipated. It also teams up with the copies of Serrated Arrows to get Obsidian Acolytes, Order of Leitburs and Valeron Outlander off the table.
Take note that the only 3-offs and 4-offs in the sideboard are Cuombajj Witches and Hydroblast, and both of these cards can be implemented against a variety of opposing decks (Hydroblast for the reasons stated above, and Witches for their ability to block, ping small creatures and gun down entire contingents when controlled in multiples).
To summarize my thoughts on sideboarding, I’d like to list out these key concepts:
- Always have (and test with) your sideboard.
- Only board out of the most ineffective cards in a matchup.
- Prefer cards that contribute to your Game 1 plan.
- Make the most of your slots by boarding in versatile cards.
- Opt for a split between similar effects in a diverse field.
To Be Continued (?)
There is definitely room for a third installment of this Pauper deckbuilding series. However, I’m not going to force it. If no one requests a continuation, or if there just aren’t many comments in general, I’ll take the hint and move onto something else.
If you’ve got any suggestions for new topics or video ideas, feel free to send them my way! I hope you’ve enjoyed this series on deckbuilding, and if you have, let me know if you want more.
As always, thanks for reading, and please comment!
What is Curse of the Pierced Heart in the SB used against?
Doge – I think they are intended for controlling strategies, namely ones that want to attrition the Burn deck and run it out of gas. It works particularly well against color combinations that don’t interact with enchantments. If you can stick one against blue (in other words get them to tap out and then resolve it), one of their only answers at that point is Hydroblast. My $.02 at any rate.
No, I agree. Back in 3xISD and DII draft, I’d bring one in from the SB against removal heavy control decks where I couldn’t stick a creature, often UB. Always amused me how pros said it was one of the worst cards in the set, and sometimes took basic lands over it, when it did in fact have uses.
I think this is great article for beginners. Most people who are new to the game either think of making the best deck they can or the best deck that can counter another good deck. But in reality you are supposed to make a good deck, then have a sideboard plan to counteract various decks. Good work Jason keep it up
Doge – I enjoyed using Curse against opponents in Standard Pauper now that I think about it!
NoName(YET) – Glad you enjoyed the article! I appreciate the comment.
I would appreciate a third article in the series. I am recently back to the game after playing ’94 through ’00. A lot of stuff is very new (no more manaburn….?). Pauper, EDH and standard is all we play locally and I’ve pretty much got a hold of the first two, but I’m having trouble weighing value of cards fir pauper. I suppose a lot of my problem is just a matter of knowledge/familiarity, but I’d like it if you’d write about rules of thumb or guidelines for how cards are valued differently when there is no access to uncommons +. I think there’s got to be something in the valuation of what I consider playable as opposed to what others consider playable because I seldomly play the same cars as those who win more even when we play the same colors/archetypes. I hope that came out clearly. thanks
menoch – I think that’s quite a cool idea! I will check with the higher-ups, and see if they’re okay with it.
Above comment is me – sorry I butchered your name, meant to say “memnoch!”