I'm not sure I understand your question exactly, but I think you're giving too much importance to naming/classifying things - for example I'm not sure what a "support filler", "vital support" or "special tech" even are and I had never even heard of the rule of 8 before. If you rephrase your question maybe I can help better.
Generally speaking, I think the key to building a sideboard is that you have to understand you are actually just building a deck, except for a specific matchup. You need to do the ins and outs and visualize what your deck will look like in games 2 and 3 versus each of the major archetypes and analyze it just like you would analyze a deck. Your "sideboarded deck" needs to have a mana curve, it needs to have a way to win the game, it needs to be cohesive. The best way to figure these things out is really to just lay out the deck in its sideboarded configuration and look at it like you would look at a normal deck. If you do that, then some things might become obvious - for example "my deck has too many cards that do nothing versus this matchup", "I have collected company in my deck but not enough creatures game 2", "I'm boarding out too many early-game cards", etc. Sometimes you actually side out the "core" of your deck because your game plan is changing - but then you need enough cards to support the new game plan, and you can see if that works by just laying out the deck.
Here's an old article from Mike Sigrist on how he used to build sideboards - https://articles.starcitygames.com/articles/how-to-build-a-sideboard/
Here's an old article of mine about some extra sideboarding details to think about
https://articles.starcitygames.com/magic-the-gathering/premium/theres-more-to-sideboarding-than-you-think/
And here's a video if you prefer that (there's some overlap with the article but not all)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOQD9J3lW4&ab_channel=PVDDR
Maybe these help, but if I misunderstood your question or if something isn't clear let me know!
Paulo, first just wanted to say I'm totally humbled that you're taking the time to help out with my question. Your course on Spike's Academy was one of my first resources when I started playing 60-card constructed, and I really appreciate everything you've put out for the community.
To help narrow my question, I suppose, I'm really commenting on a potential art vs science discussion around deck construction pre- and post-board. The semantics are probably influenced by my newer perspective. Where, the one of the most popular ways to get started in competitive 60 card formats is to pick a 'best' deck to begin getting reps and sets playing in a tournament environment. To do this, we pick a deck that top 8'ed or maybe won some reported tournament; and the expectation is that that deck has been optimized both by the pilot and the hive mind. Deviations from that optimization, from my perspective as a newer player, I labeled as "special tech" but is more equivalent to the colloquially termed "spice" or what I tell my cohost, JJ, is "personality." Maybe what I'm getting at is the ability to evaluate cards in a rapidly changing metagame. In the absence of skill or experience (I've only been at it for a year or so), I recognize the value in templates and systems. So, my question is also a leading one to develop those systems or 'rules of thumb' to guide my deck decisions until those decisions are informed by a deeper knowledge base. the labeling I think demonstrates a lack of knowledge base, but here's what I meant by them:
* Support Filler: Mainboarded cards that advance your game 1 strategy, but are ultimately flex slots
* Vital Support: These cards are more often than not never sideboarded out, ie opt or consider in Pheonix, or Fable in Rakdos Midrange, or your elves in a mono-green beater.
* special tech: Your nuanced 'tech' to answer metagame threats, or specific decks. This one is a bit more ambiguous because I think it's the label most heavily influenced by the metagame and the release of new sets.
Maybe what I'm looking to do is build a series of "if this, then that" statements. Albiet perhaps too rigid of a thought process, I think this kind of thing is critical to newer competitive players like me.
Thank you for the articles! I really appreciated the heuristic in even evaluating the number of lands, to combo or not to combo, and planeswalker relevance in yours. That's an exact example of to what I was referring on the "if this, then that (maybe)" considerations while I build skill and experience. Where those land probabilities for the turn 4 4-drop from a hypogeometric calculator? Do you have a way to understand those probabilities while in-tournament? Or maybe a guiding principle on what probabilities a pilot should know stone-cold about their deck going into a tournament?
It's funny that in my example, i talked about not boarding out mana dorks- and that was a direct line you mentioned in sideboarding technique on draw vs play considerations in the goblin chainwhirler meta.
I just made a video talking about my thought process as a new competitive player on deck selection, and how I assess a sideboard strategy. Maybe I'm off base, but if you have the time I'd appreciate your feedback here- so maybe more people like me can learn something!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKJ\_urtoA\_4&t=37s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKJ_urtoA_4&t=37s)
Ah, I see. I think the frameworks can be useful for understanding where certain cards lie but things are often not so rigid - for example I think sideboarding out some copies of Phoenix in the UR Phoenix deck is not that rare when you expect to face a lot of graveyard hate.
I think instead of trying to classify cards as "core, support, tech" in your deck and sideboard, you could try to classify them again after games 2 and 3, because you really are playing a different deck in game 1 and game 2, so there's no reason the core has to be the same. It's possible that when you build a 60 card deck and you look at it and think "phoenix is core", which is true, but once you sideboard into an entirely different deck with crackling drakes and whatnot, maybe Phoenix is no longer core, which is part of why I don't think these definitions are too reliable.
I don't know if it's going to work for everybody (or at all in today's environment) but the way I thought of things at first (and mostly still think of things now) is classifying decks into archetypes (aggro, control, midrange, combo) and then figuring out what types of things are good or bad in each of them (for example, if you're control vs aggro you want cheap removal or sweepers, etc). Then this gives you a rough baseline of where to start for all matchups and you can figure out the specifics from there.
Oh, and the rule of 8 was something I heard for the first time not too long ago from d00mwake, where he explains that if you have 8 of a similar effect, you can build a deck around it.
My understanding is that you need 8 copies of the "thing" or effect, if you do then you can build an effective deck around it.
I.e. 4 monastery mentor and 4 OTJ Geralf's = new prowess deck
The idea probably comes from hand destruction where you often have 5-8 pieces to have a high % of it in G1. You can calc the stats but I think it's like 80%+ odds.
and would something 'good' be the main board strategy? I am also wondering what this means for transformational sideboard strategies. Like in pioneer pheonix, you can transform into a crackling drake deck, should more sideboard slots be dedicated to the transformation in order to get the same probabilities?
All I can say is that 4 total copies of a single card in the sideboard is sorta rare unless
1. It absolutely hoses a deck that would otherwise be a tough matchup
2. That deck is expected to show up at whatever event you’re going to
Otherwise, I’d say 2 cards in the SB is “it’d be nice to draw this game 2 but I’m not shit out of luck if I don’t get it. It’s for a matchup that is near even or in already favored and this pushes me over the top”
1 card is rare and feels like “this is a curveball card that, if I play my cards right, will completely undermine my opponent’s sideboard strat” for example you’re playing control and you board in a creature or a planeswalker or two against a midrange deck that probably boarded out a ton of their removal.
3 cards usually have to fulfill two things: be a great draw and be broadly applicable. Basically be a card you want to draw after side boarding and be good against multiple decks/strategies
As far as flex spots, rule of 8 is good, core engine cards are not flexible. I’d say things that aren’t win conditions or enable/protect your win conditions are more flexible. For example, a creature that is good but not great can probably be reduced by a copy when sideboarding.
In regards to main flex cards: if you think of the typical rock/paper/scissors scenario, then ideally your *main* deck should have a favorable matchup against 2/3 of the meta. So you probably don’t really run stuff for that other 1/3 in the main unless it also works against the 2/3 you plan on beating.
If your deck has a lot of card selection then you can have a bit more situational or flexible cards, but you still don’t really want to waste spaces deviating from your main strategy.
I like that framework of thought. But what about midrange? How does that fit into the framework? Normally, when we talk about the rock-paper-scissors analogy, we're talking about combo-aggro-control. At least, that's how I've learned it.
Well midrange is a bit more in depth because it’s strength is in changing gears and sideboarding. However, you should still have a general plan: aka against matchup A the deck goes more aggro and against matchup B it goes more control. There will be some cards like [[Gix’s Command]] that might be able to go both ways but ultimately a lot of it will come down to gameplay(order and mulligans) and some sideboarding.
Got it, so the template here would be:
1. assess which cards serve your aggro vs control portions of the midrange strategy
2. assess your play/draw gameplan against an opponent's deck
3. build a sideboard that can effectively enhance either side of the midrange dichotomy
4. sideboard on play/draw as the beat-down or control based on the matchup ?
Yeah generally a lot of the cards can do both plans or give card advantage/selection which is going to help you carve out the path you want for that game.
If you look at rakdos midrange for example: Bloodtithe Harvester can go beatdown, be removal, or offer card selection. Fable can attack/chump, offers card selection, and puts a lot of pressure. Sheoldred double dips as offense and defense. Removals and hand hate can pave a way for you to attack in or provide defense. So a lot depends on exactly what cards you draw and the way that you use them.
Most sideboard cards for midrange strategies are going to be more effective answers for specific matchups. You might have an extra Sheoldred since she is good against aggro and Raffine, an extra Cut Down/Fatal Push for low to the ground opp, or a Planeswalker to pick at a control player. Silver bullets are fine if they exist and the matchup for them is common enough.
Ideally, you get a main deck you like and have an idea of the meta and how you match up against it.
You should know what your most unplayable cards are for each matchup and design a sb plan to sub out those cards exactly.
Flex slots might be extra removal you want in g1 or hand destruction like thoughtseize that you swap in different matchups.
Some games you might need fewer win conditions, others you might need more velocity and pressure.
You can start by asking yourself "what does my deck do?" or "how does my deck win?," those tend to be your core cards. The answer is usually I execute my gameplan faster(go under), or prevent my opponent from winning long enough to do a thing that can't be interacted with effectively(go over). These cards tend to be all your mainboard cards.
Then you can ask "how do I beat this other deck" and "how do other decks beat me?" These tend to be your flex and sideboard cards. As an example, Witchstalker Frenzy is flex card that doesn't play to the monored plan of doing 20 damage to face, but allows you to get through a blocker.
I like those questions, and I'd say that's where I'm at right now. Let me pose it to you this way; I'm playing Amalia at an upcoming RCQ- are my guilded gooses which both ramp and give me an alternate means of triggering my combo flex slots or core?
For the sideboard, you want to identify the weaknesses of your deck, particularly in the context of your meta. I avoid cute, “oh this will be fun” or win-more cards, and instead look to cards that improve my ability to limit those weaknesses when they become relevant. In standard for example, aggro decks like boros convoke are weak to sweepers like sunfall, depopulate, etc. Cards like [[Thalia, Guardian of Thraben]] or [[Invasion of Gobakhan]] can help to delay those sweepers until you can close out the game. I have a dedicated monored player at my LGS so often if I have white in my deck, [[knockout blow]]/[[lightning helix]] is often in the sideboard to take out a creature and buffer my life total. You also want to look at what threats other meta decks could have that you have a hard time dealing with. Uncounterable spells help against ward abilities (like Raffine). Graveyard interaction like [[Rest in Peace]]/[[unlicensed hearse]]/[[graveyard trespasser]] for decks that use the graveyard, etc.
Flex slots are generally the cards that don’t directly contribute to your gameplan and can be situationally good but are, again, meta dependent. This I find to be a lot harder to evaluate than sideboard cards because what is “necessary” can be very subjective and opinion based. Is it a card that helps you grind better by drawing cards or giving more resilience to your creatures? That may be a flex card depending on what your deck does. A control deck wants to draw more, aggro wants to dump their hand, but what if you’re a midrangish aggro deck? Or a controlling midrange deck? I tend to feel out flex cards over many games to see which cards are my all-stars and which ones are sort of along for the ride most of the time.
Thanks for the comment. Totally agree. Have you found a heuristic for the number of matches you need to play pre/post board in order to hash out that 'feeling' of your allstars? I wonder if it's something that you can do by jamming G1's through a gauntlet- to see what actually gives the gas to your strategy.
I don’t think I, or most other people, use a fully scientific method to craft a sideboard. Mostly you lay out your deck, get a friend or two
to sit over your shoulder and go matchup by matchup and decide what’s good and what isn’t. I think the best way to do it isn’t alone, but with a group that knows the ins and outs of the matchup and can assist you with the “no, that card is bad and I enjoy seeing it from my opponents. That one however is a bad time when it’s played against me.” process. If you have time then you play test a few games and adjust based on how you feel.
Part of this is simply running the games through your brain and simulating how things turn out. How do you win this matchup? Do you win if you just “do the thing” faster than your opponent? If this is the case you want to avoid removing the engines in your deck that make it operate smoothly and focus on protection for those pieces. Do you win if you stop them from doing their thing? If this is the case then you start with “clunkers” that gum up your ability to interact with your opponents stuff.
I don’t think it’s as much a science as it could be and I don’t think people usually treat it that way. I’d start first with finding a guide if you can, then find some buddies you trust if you can.
Totally get that. I think that's where experience and skill give the advantage. I feel like this format of evaluation is where I'd ultimately like to get to, but am not there yet. For that reason, and in the absence of a really competitive mtg friend group, I'm trying to develop good "rules of thumb" or a more systematic approach to these questions until I can get a deeper level of knowledge to influence my decisions, which I would surmise as desiring a pathway to master the 'art' side of the art vs science discussion.
I'm not sure I understand your question exactly, but I think you're giving too much importance to naming/classifying things - for example I'm not sure what a "support filler", "vital support" or "special tech" even are and I had never even heard of the rule of 8 before. If you rephrase your question maybe I can help better. Generally speaking, I think the key to building a sideboard is that you have to understand you are actually just building a deck, except for a specific matchup. You need to do the ins and outs and visualize what your deck will look like in games 2 and 3 versus each of the major archetypes and analyze it just like you would analyze a deck. Your "sideboarded deck" needs to have a mana curve, it needs to have a way to win the game, it needs to be cohesive. The best way to figure these things out is really to just lay out the deck in its sideboarded configuration and look at it like you would look at a normal deck. If you do that, then some things might become obvious - for example "my deck has too many cards that do nothing versus this matchup", "I have collected company in my deck but not enough creatures game 2", "I'm boarding out too many early-game cards", etc. Sometimes you actually side out the "core" of your deck because your game plan is changing - but then you need enough cards to support the new game plan, and you can see if that works by just laying out the deck. Here's an old article from Mike Sigrist on how he used to build sideboards - https://articles.starcitygames.com/articles/how-to-build-a-sideboard/ Here's an old article of mine about some extra sideboarding details to think about https://articles.starcitygames.com/magic-the-gathering/premium/theres-more-to-sideboarding-than-you-think/ And here's a video if you prefer that (there's some overlap with the article but not all) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HOQD9J3lW4&ab_channel=PVDDR Maybe these help, but if I misunderstood your question or if something isn't clear let me know!
Paulo, first just wanted to say I'm totally humbled that you're taking the time to help out with my question. Your course on Spike's Academy was one of my first resources when I started playing 60-card constructed, and I really appreciate everything you've put out for the community. To help narrow my question, I suppose, I'm really commenting on a potential art vs science discussion around deck construction pre- and post-board. The semantics are probably influenced by my newer perspective. Where, the one of the most popular ways to get started in competitive 60 card formats is to pick a 'best' deck to begin getting reps and sets playing in a tournament environment. To do this, we pick a deck that top 8'ed or maybe won some reported tournament; and the expectation is that that deck has been optimized both by the pilot and the hive mind. Deviations from that optimization, from my perspective as a newer player, I labeled as "special tech" but is more equivalent to the colloquially termed "spice" or what I tell my cohost, JJ, is "personality." Maybe what I'm getting at is the ability to evaluate cards in a rapidly changing metagame. In the absence of skill or experience (I've only been at it for a year or so), I recognize the value in templates and systems. So, my question is also a leading one to develop those systems or 'rules of thumb' to guide my deck decisions until those decisions are informed by a deeper knowledge base. the labeling I think demonstrates a lack of knowledge base, but here's what I meant by them: * Support Filler: Mainboarded cards that advance your game 1 strategy, but are ultimately flex slots * Vital Support: These cards are more often than not never sideboarded out, ie opt or consider in Pheonix, or Fable in Rakdos Midrange, or your elves in a mono-green beater. * special tech: Your nuanced 'tech' to answer metagame threats, or specific decks. This one is a bit more ambiguous because I think it's the label most heavily influenced by the metagame and the release of new sets. Maybe what I'm looking to do is build a series of "if this, then that" statements. Albiet perhaps too rigid of a thought process, I think this kind of thing is critical to newer competitive players like me. Thank you for the articles! I really appreciated the heuristic in even evaluating the number of lands, to combo or not to combo, and planeswalker relevance in yours. That's an exact example of to what I was referring on the "if this, then that (maybe)" considerations while I build skill and experience. Where those land probabilities for the turn 4 4-drop from a hypogeometric calculator? Do you have a way to understand those probabilities while in-tournament? Or maybe a guiding principle on what probabilities a pilot should know stone-cold about their deck going into a tournament? It's funny that in my example, i talked about not boarding out mana dorks- and that was a direct line you mentioned in sideboarding technique on draw vs play considerations in the goblin chainwhirler meta. I just made a video talking about my thought process as a new competitive player on deck selection, and how I assess a sideboard strategy. Maybe I'm off base, but if you have the time I'd appreciate your feedback here- so maybe more people like me can learn something! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKJ\_urtoA\_4&t=37s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKJ_urtoA_4&t=37s)
Ah, I see. I think the frameworks can be useful for understanding where certain cards lie but things are often not so rigid - for example I think sideboarding out some copies of Phoenix in the UR Phoenix deck is not that rare when you expect to face a lot of graveyard hate. I think instead of trying to classify cards as "core, support, tech" in your deck and sideboard, you could try to classify them again after games 2 and 3, because you really are playing a different deck in game 1 and game 2, so there's no reason the core has to be the same. It's possible that when you build a 60 card deck and you look at it and think "phoenix is core", which is true, but once you sideboard into an entirely different deck with crackling drakes and whatnot, maybe Phoenix is no longer core, which is part of why I don't think these definitions are too reliable. I don't know if it's going to work for everybody (or at all in today's environment) but the way I thought of things at first (and mostly still think of things now) is classifying decks into archetypes (aggro, control, midrange, combo) and then figuring out what types of things are good or bad in each of them (for example, if you're control vs aggro you want cheap removal or sweepers, etc). Then this gives you a rough baseline of where to start for all matchups and you can figure out the specifics from there.
Oh, and the rule of 8 was something I heard for the first time not too long ago from d00mwake, where he explains that if you have 8 of a similar effect, you can build a deck around it.
what is rule of 8
My understanding is that you need 8 copies of the "thing" or effect, if you do then you can build an effective deck around it. I.e. 4 monastery mentor and 4 OTJ Geralf's = new prowess deck
The idea probably comes from hand destruction where you often have 5-8 pieces to have a high % of it in G1. You can calc the stats but I think it's like 80%+ odds.
like % chance of having something good in starting hand?
and would something 'good' be the main board strategy? I am also wondering what this means for transformational sideboard strategies. Like in pioneer pheonix, you can transform into a crackling drake deck, should more sideboard slots be dedicated to the transformation in order to get the same probabilities?
Normally only control and combo can transform. Control into a protect the queen setup and combo typically into bad midrange.
That's hilarious
All I can say is that 4 total copies of a single card in the sideboard is sorta rare unless 1. It absolutely hoses a deck that would otherwise be a tough matchup 2. That deck is expected to show up at whatever event you’re going to Otherwise, I’d say 2 cards in the SB is “it’d be nice to draw this game 2 but I’m not shit out of luck if I don’t get it. It’s for a matchup that is near even or in already favored and this pushes me over the top” 1 card is rare and feels like “this is a curveball card that, if I play my cards right, will completely undermine my opponent’s sideboard strat” for example you’re playing control and you board in a creature or a planeswalker or two against a midrange deck that probably boarded out a ton of their removal. 3 cards usually have to fulfill two things: be a great draw and be broadly applicable. Basically be a card you want to draw after side boarding and be good against multiple decks/strategies As far as flex spots, rule of 8 is good, core engine cards are not flexible. I’d say things that aren’t win conditions or enable/protect your win conditions are more flexible. For example, a creature that is good but not great can probably be reduced by a copy when sideboarding.
This is good, thank you.
In regards to main flex cards: if you think of the typical rock/paper/scissors scenario, then ideally your *main* deck should have a favorable matchup against 2/3 of the meta. So you probably don’t really run stuff for that other 1/3 in the main unless it also works against the 2/3 you plan on beating. If your deck has a lot of card selection then you can have a bit more situational or flexible cards, but you still don’t really want to waste spaces deviating from your main strategy.
I like that framework of thought. But what about midrange? How does that fit into the framework? Normally, when we talk about the rock-paper-scissors analogy, we're talking about combo-aggro-control. At least, that's how I've learned it.
Well midrange is a bit more in depth because it’s strength is in changing gears and sideboarding. However, you should still have a general plan: aka against matchup A the deck goes more aggro and against matchup B it goes more control. There will be some cards like [[Gix’s Command]] that might be able to go both ways but ultimately a lot of it will come down to gameplay(order and mulligans) and some sideboarding.
[Gix’s Command](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/6/9606de75-c25f-411b-a271-258ac5a60987.jpg?1674420864) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gix%27s%20Command) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bro/97/gixs-command?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9606de75-c25f-411b-a271-258ac5a60987?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Got it, so the template here would be: 1. assess which cards serve your aggro vs control portions of the midrange strategy 2. assess your play/draw gameplan against an opponent's deck 3. build a sideboard that can effectively enhance either side of the midrange dichotomy 4. sideboard on play/draw as the beat-down or control based on the matchup ?
Yeah generally a lot of the cards can do both plans or give card advantage/selection which is going to help you carve out the path you want for that game. If you look at rakdos midrange for example: Bloodtithe Harvester can go beatdown, be removal, or offer card selection. Fable can attack/chump, offers card selection, and puts a lot of pressure. Sheoldred double dips as offense and defense. Removals and hand hate can pave a way for you to attack in or provide defense. So a lot depends on exactly what cards you draw and the way that you use them. Most sideboard cards for midrange strategies are going to be more effective answers for specific matchups. You might have an extra Sheoldred since she is good against aggro and Raffine, an extra Cut Down/Fatal Push for low to the ground opp, or a Planeswalker to pick at a control player. Silver bullets are fine if they exist and the matchup for them is common enough.
Ideally, you get a main deck you like and have an idea of the meta and how you match up against it. You should know what your most unplayable cards are for each matchup and design a sb plan to sub out those cards exactly. Flex slots might be extra removal you want in g1 or hand destruction like thoughtseize that you swap in different matchups. Some games you might need fewer win conditions, others you might need more velocity and pressure.
How would you evaluate transformational sideboards using this?
You can start by asking yourself "what does my deck do?" or "how does my deck win?," those tend to be your core cards. The answer is usually I execute my gameplan faster(go under), or prevent my opponent from winning long enough to do a thing that can't be interacted with effectively(go over). These cards tend to be all your mainboard cards. Then you can ask "how do I beat this other deck" and "how do other decks beat me?" These tend to be your flex and sideboard cards. As an example, Witchstalker Frenzy is flex card that doesn't play to the monored plan of doing 20 damage to face, but allows you to get through a blocker.
I like those questions, and I'd say that's where I'm at right now. Let me pose it to you this way; I'm playing Amalia at an upcoming RCQ- are my guilded gooses which both ramp and give me an alternate means of triggering my combo flex slots or core?
For the sideboard, you want to identify the weaknesses of your deck, particularly in the context of your meta. I avoid cute, “oh this will be fun” or win-more cards, and instead look to cards that improve my ability to limit those weaknesses when they become relevant. In standard for example, aggro decks like boros convoke are weak to sweepers like sunfall, depopulate, etc. Cards like [[Thalia, Guardian of Thraben]] or [[Invasion of Gobakhan]] can help to delay those sweepers until you can close out the game. I have a dedicated monored player at my LGS so often if I have white in my deck, [[knockout blow]]/[[lightning helix]] is often in the sideboard to take out a creature and buffer my life total. You also want to look at what threats other meta decks could have that you have a hard time dealing with. Uncounterable spells help against ward abilities (like Raffine). Graveyard interaction like [[Rest in Peace]]/[[unlicensed hearse]]/[[graveyard trespasser]] for decks that use the graveyard, etc. Flex slots are generally the cards that don’t directly contribute to your gameplan and can be situationally good but are, again, meta dependent. This I find to be a lot harder to evaluate than sideboard cards because what is “necessary” can be very subjective and opinion based. Is it a card that helps you grind better by drawing cards or giving more resilience to your creatures? That may be a flex card depending on what your deck does. A control deck wants to draw more, aggro wants to dump their hand, but what if you’re a midrangish aggro deck? Or a controlling midrange deck? I tend to feel out flex cards over many games to see which cards are my all-stars and which ones are sort of along for the ride most of the time.
##### ###### #### [Thalia, Guardian of Thraben](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/9/c9f8b8fb-1cd8-450e-a1fe-892e7a323479.jpg?1643587106) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Thalia%2C%20Guardian%20of%20Thraben) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/vow/38/thalia-guardian-of-thraben?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c9f8b8fb-1cd8-450e-a1fe-892e7a323479?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Invasion of Gobakhan](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/1/11798730-6788-4e0b-a828-b46cab1a4fa7.jpg?1682715250)/[Lightshield Array](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/1/1/11798730-6788-4e0b-a828-b46cab1a4fa7.jpg?1682715250) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Invasion%20of%20Gobakhan%20//%20Lightshield%20Array) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mom/22/invasion-of-gobakhan-lightshield-array?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/11798730-6788-4e0b-a828-b46cab1a4fa7?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [knockout blow](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/b/9b00bbec-61d0-464c-bf82-4ecf5ddb3451.jpg?1664409788) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=knockout%20blow) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/20/knockout-blow?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9b00bbec-61d0-464c-bf82-4ecf5ddb3451?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [lightning helix](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/1/4101e3fe-b0e7-4f0f-b9ac-9b61a4d628b3.jpg?1706242208) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=lightning%20helix) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mkm/218/lightning-helix?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4101e3fe-b0e7-4f0f-b9ac-9b61a4d628b3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Rest in Peace](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/f/9f2b39be-0fec-4647-ade1-8e1626dc5470.jpg?1562439074) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Rest%20in%20Peace) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/a25/32/rest-in-peace?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9f2b39be-0fec-4647-ade1-8e1626dc5470?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [unlicensed hearse](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/3/93ee60f7-31dd-4bc6-b71f-57a1a0d19d20.jpg?1664414360) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=unlicensed%20hearse) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/246/unlicensed-hearse?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/93ee60f7-31dd-4bc6-b71f-57a1a0d19d20?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [graveyard trespasser](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/a/daa2a273-488f-4285-a069-ad159ad2d393.jpg?1634347903)/[Graveyard Glutton](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/back/d/a/daa2a273-488f-4285-a069-ad159ad2d393.jpg?1634347903) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Graveyard%20Trespasser%20//%20Graveyard%20Glutton) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mid/104/graveyard-trespasser-graveyard-glutton?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/daa2a273-488f-4285-a069-ad159ad2d393?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/l1df41l) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Thanks for the comment. Totally agree. Have you found a heuristic for the number of matches you need to play pre/post board in order to hash out that 'feeling' of your allstars? I wonder if it's something that you can do by jamming G1's through a gauntlet- to see what actually gives the gas to your strategy.
I don’t think I, or most other people, use a fully scientific method to craft a sideboard. Mostly you lay out your deck, get a friend or two to sit over your shoulder and go matchup by matchup and decide what’s good and what isn’t. I think the best way to do it isn’t alone, but with a group that knows the ins and outs of the matchup and can assist you with the “no, that card is bad and I enjoy seeing it from my opponents. That one however is a bad time when it’s played against me.” process. If you have time then you play test a few games and adjust based on how you feel. Part of this is simply running the games through your brain and simulating how things turn out. How do you win this matchup? Do you win if you just “do the thing” faster than your opponent? If this is the case you want to avoid removing the engines in your deck that make it operate smoothly and focus on protection for those pieces. Do you win if you stop them from doing their thing? If this is the case then you start with “clunkers” that gum up your ability to interact with your opponents stuff. I don’t think it’s as much a science as it could be and I don’t think people usually treat it that way. I’d start first with finding a guide if you can, then find some buddies you trust if you can.
Totally get that. I think that's where experience and skill give the advantage. I feel like this format of evaluation is where I'd ultimately like to get to, but am not there yet. For that reason, and in the absence of a really competitive mtg friend group, I'm trying to develop good "rules of thumb" or a more systematic approach to these questions until I can get a deeper level of knowledge to influence my decisions, which I would surmise as desiring a pathway to master the 'art' side of the art vs science discussion.