isnt that what card games are? so none of you have ever had to have the conversation with yourselves on what to play for a particular event,

do i play kaboom or foiled today?
will betryal work today or not?
I run a agro deck but am worryed about stalish decks, do i run run OMNI which has no purpose until turn 5 or later and im trying to win there?
Do i run flametrap in room full of curve? or do i go without and hope i dont get out swarmed?

do i run PA to stop things from hitting my stuff, or do i be offensive and run destruction of my opponets stuff.

or even after you have shuffled and started playing, am i the agro or the control in this matchup? if it takes too long to figure that out, you might have just lost.

i cant be the only person who thinks of this stuff?

But I think the decisions above is what makes VS. great; it is really ideal as a sudden-death type game. Having all of the options open to you makes it a different (and in my opinion, inferior) game.

Sideboards would just make the tech wars in Vs even worse.

Silver bullets = games based less on skill and more on luck.

Sideboards mean both players have the best available silver bullets.

Sideboards mean less skill in games, more games decided by who draws their tech first.

But havent you ever just wanted to build your deck to work like it ideally should? and save the other stuff for the side?

Lets take the card meltdown for instance. it was a highly played card in 2006, it was everywhere, because alot of decks packed heavy equpment. But in other matchups that card was deader than dead. sure you might gain 2 life off of it, but still its a situational card that doesnt really fit with the theme or plan of your deck. its there just incase i play against deck A or B.

How many slots do most decks have for meta game 4? When you build a deck you don't meta game for everything.

I like I said the game would be totally different

Different, yes. But inferior? I don't know about that. Even just playing around the kitchen table cards get swaped in and out of a deck all the time. Taking that to a competitive level may have a negative impact on the game, but I don't think that it's really possible to say that with certainty.

I would still play even if sideboards became the norm. Just imagine if there were sideboards when GLOCK was king or...Sentinels...X-stall...who would win?

hmmm I might say yes to sideboards one day...

thats the whole point though, you only have so much space, hence a sideboard.

Sideboards are for the weak.

Real deckbuilders and metagame predictors don't need no silver bullets.

Man up!!!

you do remember that the came was all about the 1 off enemy target a while back?

saying man up is like saying go big or go home. except for the fact that if you dont try to meta any then you will be going home and not going big.

The term is SIDE DECK.

Damn it.

Say it properly.

And while you're at it I'll thank you to keep your Yugioh filth from contaminating a GOOD card game.

its called a sideboard its been a staple of magic as long as some kids have been alive.

and it could add some new dynamics to the game.

REP. I was wondering why they called them side decks but I decided to go with the flow.

No dude, you clearly have your wires crossed. The sideboard has been a staple of INTERIOR DECORATING since the 1970's.

Sideboards art bad. They will make Vs more like Magic, in the fact that well if I lose to this ,I sideboard that and vice versa. I think it is rediculous to have sideboards, because it takes the fun out of building a competive and heck even a non-competitive deck.

And plus that would bring back the 2 out of 3 format that took 9 ours to play 3 games. I hated that.