Side-Decking Card Effects.

Original Premise

That’s the original article, now lets rehash this shit.

The original premise stays the same. You should always map out what your general plan is when side decking, that idea hasn’t changed. The part that I wanted to expand on with this update. Is the idea of what kinds of cards are good in terms of side-decking.

Basically, a lot of the time you’ll see cards in the side-deck that don’t do anything incredibly special, a card like this would something like D.D. Crow or Crevice. Cards that under normal circumstances you would not want to main. So what makes the cards good? If we cant base the cards use on the two general principles of the game being Utility or Card advantage, than what do we use?

The use, or how good a certain card is in the side-deck can be determined by a couple of principles replacing the basic principles of utility and card advantage.

1. How good the card is in the meta (Card Advantage)?

Basically if the card is useless otherwise (Gottoms E-Call in a non X-saber deck) then what can it do in the current metagame? If your local tournament, for example, is all X-saber decks, then Gottoms E-call is probably worth that side-deck slot. Side decking is generally reserved for cards that can squash various match-ups but might become a dead draw anywhere else.

This is part of the reason you’ll see cards that have low Utility or low Advantage output, because they provide something more for against a match up. I’m not saying that cards never provide these two theories, but they both bring something different to the table.

How this theory replaces Card Advantage to me is that it is based off of power. How powerful a card is is usually based on how much Card Advantage a card can provide, the principle being different in this case. Instead of it just being how much raw Card Advantage a card can provide it changes Advantage into a different meaning, thus the idea of power remains, but what provides that power ends up being different.

[For example, D.D. Crow is usually a minus 1. But when played against the ride deck at the right time, the cards power drastically changes, potentially swinging the game, and providing more Card Advantage than what is specifically stated on the card. The basic idea of the cards power being rooted in Advantage remains, but how the card does it is different than the general idea of pluses and minuses]

2. How many match-ups can the card be used against (Utility)?

This is the other reason why cards see play in the side-deck. It’s actually a combination of this and the first reason. If the card in the metagame has multiple match ups that it’ll devastate in then you’ll probably want to invest the side-deck space into using the card.

A great example would be Effect Veiler. This is a card that utilizes both of these theories so well that it has made the move to the main deck. The card could literally used in every match-up and actually hurt a lot of different decks in the meta, to the point where it could shut down a decks game winning play.

How this differs from Utility? Well it actually doesn’t in a way. It’s more broader than the basic “how many times when I draw this card will I be able to use” base of Utility. What I’m saying is that you have to judge the utility of the card multiple times, rather than initially including it into your deck.

Now you have to think about, if the card is worth siding and how many match-ups can I use it in, and whether or not to side it in, and deciding if it will still be useful during that side decking process.

[For example, if you siding D.D. Crow for a match-up like X-sabers. You know when to use D.D. Crow and if you need to use it in your side deck. You decide that you will. Then mid-game against an X-saber deck, you realize that he is not running a standard build (standard enough to be good, but teched enough to stop popular side-deck choices) so you then have to decide whether or not D.D. Crow will be as useful in this specific match.]

Basically if that example was confusing, what I’m trying to say is that there are more points when side-decking a card that you have to know whether or not that card is useful, where as the general utility is decided during deckbuilding. Side-decking utility is decided during building the side-deck and mid match.

So with these two theories, we see that Advantage and Utility take on different forms in the side-deck. While not being completely different the ideas lend each other to different principles encompassing more than just Card Advantage and Utility originally due, since there are extra elements. Now lets take a look at what kind of cards there are when it comes to side-decking.

Originally I presented this idea and this graph…

Macro Effects (Multiple Match-ups)>Macro Effects (singular Match-ups) > Micro Effects (Multiple Match-ups)> Micro Effects (singular Match-ups)

The general theory is again the same as well as the chart, but I want to expand on it since I think the basic principle is more fluid than that. I’ll start with some definitions.

Micro Effects

Micro Effects are card effects that target one thing, and don’t have a huge effect on the board. Examples of Micro Effects would be things like D.D. Crow, and Effect Veiler. These cards only have one general target when it comes to effecting board presence. So they end up getting the label of being Micro, since they’re small target.

Lets move on to Macro Effects.

Macro Effects

These are essentially the opposite. These are cards that effect the overall board in much different ways than just generally one card. For example, these are cards like Dimensional Fissure, Deck Lockdown and Royal Oppression. They effect the whole board and kind of change the way your opponents play.

Now that the basic definitions are down. We look at the chart again. The number of Match-ups depends heavily on the meta, so like right now, D-Fissure would fall under Macro Effects (Singular Match-ups) because the card doesn’t effect much.

There is one thing that I got wrong on the chart that I’ve realized over time. That would be the order of things on there. Instead of how it is, it should be:

Macro Effects (Multiple Match-ups) > Micro Effects (Multiple Match-ups)  Macro Effects (Singular) > Micro Effects (singular Match-ups)

Basically, I’m shifting positions because from what I’ve seen is that Micro Effects that influence multiple match-ups are generally always better than Macro Effects using singular match-ups. All of the signs get changed since pretty much anything is possible.

Now lets look at a divided side deck. For some cards it may be difficult to decide how to divide them up.

Billy Brakes X-Saber Side Deck
Side Deck: 15
1 Cyber Dragon
1 Thunder King Rai-Oh
1 Maxx “C”
1 Fossil Dyna Pachycephalo
1 D.D. Crow
2 Puppet Plant
2 Chain Disappearance
2 Gozen Match
1 Shadow-Imprisoning Mirror
1 Malevolent Catastrophe
1 Nobleman of Crossout
1 Closed Forest

I’m using this as an example because it has a lot of cards that we’ve seen sided this format. If we were to divide it up.

Macro Effects (Multiple Match-ups)
2 Chain Disappearance ( I’m teetering between it being a Micro and a Macro)
1 Malevolant Catastrophe
1 Fossil Dyna Pachycephalo

Micro Effects (Multiple Match-ups)
1 Cyber Dragon
1 Thunder King Rai-Oh
1 Maxx “C”
1 D.D. Crow
1 Nobleman of Crossout

Macro Effects (Singular Match-ups)
2 Gozen Match
1 Shadow Imprisoning Mirror
1 Closed Forest

Micro Effects (singular Match-ups)
2 Puppet Plant

What we end up with is a good balance. As we can see in the example, Micro Effects (Singular Match-ups) are extremely limited and need to have higher values in the two principles in order to get played. Puppet Plant is really powerful against Samurais so it ends up making the cut.

We see a lot of Micro Effects (with multiple match-ups) for a couple of reasons. For starters, Micro Effects have more cards out in general. There are a lot more Micro Effects than there are Macro Effects. That and good Macro Effects are hard to fine. It’s possible to have formats where a couple of decks just crumple to certain cards in the side, but generally, Macro Effects (Multiple Match-ups) are limited.

When building a side deck it is important to think about these principles and to kind of map it all out. Chances are that your side deck will get better. Also remember that although these principles generally occur, that they are extremely flexible and just because something fits the theory doesn’t mean it will follow it.

To close, I would like to discuss Effect Veiler, because that is one of those cards transcending the theory.

Basically, Effect Veiler dominates because it’s extremely powerful. It has uses against everything in general, which makes it so that it’s possibly something that you would want to main deck due to high utility. Add to that the fact that it can shut down OTK’s and you’ve got yourself a winner.

The card probably never belonged in the side-deck in the first place to be honest, once people realized how flexible the card is we saw that shift. It is a good example of a Micro Effect in the side-deck can transcend the basic chart and becoming better than some Macro Effects (with multiple match-ups).

Another card we’ve seen do this is Royal Oppression. This is probably an article idea for another day so I’m going to end it there.

Peace out.