Author Topic: Siding in Redemption: A near future possibility? (Read 9619 times)

Master KChief · « **on:** September 06, 2012, 04:42:29 PM »

Since there have been recent talks about the possibility of a best 2 of 3 in Redemption, I wanted to share on the strategic elements that are involved with siding. In the past and still currently, siding has never been an option due to Redemption only having a Game 1. However, with best 2 of 3, that creates a Game 2 and possible Game 3, which opens the doors to a sideboard/deck.

A sideboard is a set number of cards a player carries along with their main deck. After Game 1 and 2, a player may switch out any card in his main deck for any card in his sideboard on a 1 for 1 basis. For instance, you have a 50 card main deck and a 15 card sideboard, Game 1 is now over, and both players have proceeded to side. At the end of siding (a very short process, perhaps no more than 2 minutes), your main deck must be at 50 and your sideboard must be at 15, exactly the same numbers before siding begun. Both players can then again repeat this process after Game 2, if there will be a Game 3.

So why have a sideboard in the first place? After all, we have played Redemption with only a Game 1 for 17 years perfectly fine. However, in the CCG's I have played that use a sideboard, Game 2 and 3 are by far the most strategic and overall best games I ever play in a tournament. So why is that? Implementing a sideboard brings a whole new strategic element to the game. No deck is perfect. Every deck has its holes, every deck has it's weaknesses. A sideboard can help fill those particular holes with cards that you wouldn't necessarily put in your main deck. For example, Fight by the Numbers Banding has a particularly bad match up against Philistines. You would like to main some hard counters to fix that weakness in your deck, but you begin to realize a) some hard counters are too specific in nature, b) not everyone uses Philistines, and c) the room in the deck is usually very sparse to begin with. Therefore those hard counters you had in mind against that specific Philly matchup are relegated to the back burner, and you either play with soft counters that also have uses against other types of decks, or you don't play with any counters at all. A sideboard helps fix this glaring problem. With a sideboard, you now have access to those hard counters against Philly that didn't deserve to be in the main deck. Hezekiah's Signet Ring is an excellent sideboard card in this case, as it can shut down the mass searching that Philistines do as well as the recursion. A card that never sees play because its focus is too narrow, but absolutely amazing sideboard material.

Another big advantage of a sideboard is it will severely increase the playability of the counters the playtesters have given to us over recent years. Every year new counters are printed with the intention of slowing down the biggest deck in the meta from last year. While their efforts are with a direction to balance the meta, we can't deny most of these counters are just too narrow in scope to eat up a much needed slot in our main decks. While fantastic cards if you are playing against that matchup, they tend to be a wasted card in the deck otherwise, as most competitive players are not willing to take that risk. Most players will opt for the card that works in most if not all situations, not one that will only work in specific situations. However, these counters would work wonderfully well in the sideboard. And there are many more potential sideboard materials readily available to us out there, some cards even long-forgotten by now because they are so old and obscure! It just takes a bit of creativity and strategic thinking to find them and see what works best for you and your deck.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #1 on:** September 06, 2012, 05:02:30 PM »

Thanks for posting this. The one downside I see right away is that Redemption has traditionally been focused on being accessible to players of all ages (down to 7-8 year olds). Compared to other CCGs, top decks can be acquired with relatively small initial investment. The question is, would sideboards be something that new/younger players would be able to adapt to easily? Have you observed the experience of younger/new players in other CCGs that implement them?

I love the idea offhand (especially since I tend to try non-traditional strategies), and I would love to host/participate in a tournament that implemented it. I have a few questions though:

1. How do games 2 and 3 affect scoring? Is a series loss better if you win one of three as opposed to 0 of 2? Or does that differ with game/tournament level? I'm not sure what the scoring system is in other CCGs, but do you have any idea how it might mesh with Redemption's 3-2-1.5-1-0 Victory Point system?

2. Is the sideboard size typically a set amount (i.e. 15 cards, in your example), or is it a percentage of deck size (i.e. 30% in your example)?

I hope we can get a good discussion of the pros and cons, and who knows, maybe someday it could be implemented. It would probably turn T1-2P into a 2-day event at Nats (with fewer rounds, likely 7-8).

STAMP · « **Reply #2 on:** September 06, 2012, 05:09:29 PM »

Egads! Deck checking!!

Signed,
Your Friendly Tournament Host

(But from a player perspective: totally cool idea.)

CJSports · « **Reply #3 on:** September 06, 2012, 05:20:14 PM »

I would love this idea sooo much. I think scoring would work almost exactly the same but all you do is add up your LS's after three games and then get the differential after that. So if you win your first two games 5-0 you have a 3+10 score. You only get win points if you win you're match. This is how I would see it working...

Minister Polarius · « **Reply #4 on:** September 06, 2012, 05:27:34 PM »

The Redemption scoring system wouldn't conflict with it at all. 2/3 matches with sideboarding would only happen after top cut, where you either win or lose and to what degree you do so doesn't matter. We would have to look at timing out, though, since every deck would just be a turtle designed to get one more LS than the opponent and then wall out. Perhaps every timeout counts as a tie and if all three rounds are tied the player with the smallest deck wins?

Young/New player accessibility wouldn't matter at all for the same reason. If a new/young player made it into the top cut in the first place, he clearly already has a good enough understanding to use sidedecks.

As for deck checking, all you'd have to do is make sure the side deck can't make the main deck illegal (perhaps no Dominants in the side deck). People shoving LS's into the side-deck would be really easy to police and is actually less likely to happen than sending them to the Art pile.

Master KChief · « **Reply #5 on:** September 06, 2012, 05:40:31 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on September 06, 2012, 05:02:30 PM

The question is, would sideboards be something that new/younger players would be able to adapt to easily? Have you observed the experience of younger/new players in other CCGs that implement them?

In other CCG's, its the option of the player to play with or without one. For new/younger players, I haven't seen it as any problem at all. Some do pick up on it easily...I mean, you can essentially just pick 15 random cards and call it good. Of course, some will be at an inherent disadvantage if they choose not to play with a sideboard, but they're usually the ones that are just there for the playing and fun rather than the competitive aspects of the game.

Quote

1. How do games 2 and 3 affect scoring? Is a series loss better if you win one of three as opposed to 0 of 2? Or does that differ with game/tournament level? I'm not sure what the scoring system is in other CCGs, but do you have any idea how it might mesh with Redemption's 3-2-1.5-1-0 Victory Point system?

I'm not all that familiar with the Redemption scoring system, so I may not be able to answer all of your questions until I get some clarification on the Redemption point values (I know 3 is for full win, 0 for loss, not sure about the others). To answer your first question, Games 2 and 3 won't affect scoring at all, they're just extra games being played. The only thing that matters is who wins and loses the entire round, which would still be a full 3 for an overall win (2-0 or 2-1) and 0 for a loss (0-2 or 1-2). I'm not sure I understand the second question.

Quote

2. Is the sideboard size typically a set amount (i.e. 15 cards, in your example), or is it a percentage of deck size (i.e. 30% in your example)?

It's a set amount. 1 CCG uses a set amount at 15, as in, if you choose to use a sideboard, you must use 15...no more, no less. In another CCG the player is allowed to use a sideboard in any amount between 0 and 15. The third CCG does not use a sideboard at all. Of course, we would have to adjust the number of allowable cards in a sideboard for Redemption to one that best suits it.

Quote

It would probably turn T1-2P into a 2-day event at Nats (with fewer rounds, likely 7-8).

I would like to see it tested for the top cut at a Nationals. That would more than likely be the best spot to implement and test it as most of the players that make top cut will be the more competitive ones, thus take full advantage of the sideboard. It will also save on the time necessary for it if Swiss is still kept at the normal Game 1...could possibly still fit everything in one day if doing it with a Top 16.

Quote from: STAMP on September 06, 2012, 05:09:29 PM

Egads! Deck checking!!

Signed,
Your Friendly Tournament Host

Which is one small reason why I'm also a strong proponent of having players fill out and bring a decklist to the deck checkers.

slugfencer · « **Reply #6 on:** September 07, 2012, 06:29:57 PM »

I like the best 2/3 + sideboard + top cut. I used to play magic before Redemption came out, and I always liked their format for that. Took out lots of "lucky/awful draws/pairings" and allows more strategy/fairness.

cookie monster · « **Reply #7 on:** November 12, 2012, 09:52:22 AM »

I think this could become another category. That way there will probably not be as many people involved, which makes it easier on the deck checkers, and newer players that do not have a good sideboard can play in another category.

Master KChief · « **Reply #8 on:** November 12, 2012, 01:34:45 PM »

Deck checking as a whole can become easier by requiring players to fill out a deck list before the tournament and handing it in to the judges/deck checkers. Deck checkers can then quickly and easily scan the deck list to make sure everything is legal. Random deck checks throughout the tournament then keeps integrity in check. No need to physically check in every single deck as we do now. No need to turn in decks after each round as we do now.

Red · « **Reply #9 on:** November 12, 2012, 01:55:15 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on November 12, 2012, 01:34:45 PM

Deck checking as a whole can become easier by requiring players to fill out a deck list before the tournament and handing it in to the judges/deck checkers. Deck checkers can then quickly and easily scan the deck list to make sure everything is legal. Random deck checks throughout the tournament then keeps integrity in check. No need to physically check in every single deck as we do now. No need to turn in decks after each round as we do now.

turning in decks keeps the game even more honest. I like.

Master KChief · « **Reply #10 on:** November 12, 2012, 02:09:17 PM »

Turning in decks doesn't even matter if judges/deck checkers already have deck lists of every single player at the tournament. As it is now, anyone could still slip in any cards they desire not checked in before the tournament.

cookie monster · « **Reply #11 on:** November 12, 2012, 03:14:42 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on November 12, 2012, 02:09:17 PM

Turning in decks doesn't even matter if judges/deck checkers already have deck lists of every single player at the tournament. As it is now, anyone could still slip in any cards they desire not checked in before the tournament.

This is true, it is a good thing this is a christian game or else we would have a lot more people doing just that.

to_to_toriquah · « **Reply #12 on:** November 12, 2012, 04:23:36 PM »

I think this whole sideboard business would be an intriguing addition to Redemption. However, in regards to the deck check questions: Say, for example, I have extra Dominants included in my sideboard. Between games 1 and 2, I decide to put Falling Away into my deck because my opponent doesn't have Guardians, but I get my cards mixed up and switch out the wrong card. If a deck check does not happen between the 2 games, the possibility exists that I could get away with too many Dominants (according to that Dominant Cap rule, that I think is in the rules, but might not be), whether purposefully or accidentally on my part. (Note: I would never purposely cheat, this is all hypothetical).
On a different note, if I had a 50 card deck and had to rip a Plot, then a sideboard would be very beneficial.

Master KChief · « **Reply #13 on:** November 13, 2012, 03:51:22 AM »

Quote from: to_to_toriquah on November 12, 2012, 04:23:36 PM

However, in regards to the deck check questions: Say, for example, I have extra Dominants included in my sideboard. Between games 1 and 2, I decide to put Falling Away into my deck because my opponent doesn't have Guardians, but I get my cards mixed up and switch out the wrong card. If a deck check does not happen between the 2 games, the possibility exists that I could get away with too many Dominants (according to that Dominant Cap rule, that I think is in the rules, but might not be), whether purposefully or accidentally on my part.

Right. But adding in Dominants (whether on purpose or accident) between games as it is now can still happen as well, even moreso possible with the lack of random deck checks happening in current tournaments. This is why random deck checking will help keep players in check...the possibility of being randomly deck checked and DQ'd because your deck doesn't match your deck list will keep honest and cheating players alike on their toes.

Quote

On a different note, if I had a 50 card deck and had to rip a Plot, then a sideboard would be very beneficial.

Unfortunately it probably wouldn't work this way. Most other CCG's that utilize sideboards state the number of cards in the Main and Side cannot change. Meaning if you started with a 50 card deck and a 15 card sideboard, you always have to end up with that same number after siding. For instance, if I decide to put in 3 cards from my Side deck, I must also take out 3 cards from my Main deck so the total number of each deck always stays the same. If I rip a plot, I can of course put a card from my Side deck into the main deck in it's place, but I'm now 1 card short for my Side deck, and the numbers do not match from the start of the game.

Of course, this could possibly be changed if implemented into Redemption, but I think that takes away from the strategic value of a Side deck in the first place.

Master KChief · « **Reply #14 on:** November 26, 2012, 05:43:00 PM »

Bumping so we can finally have this finalized for ROOT. Best way to have this implemented for ROOT?

Type 1 Proposal:

1. 15 card side deck (exactly? up to?)
2. 1:1 card ratio when siding. For example, if you side in 5 cards from the Side Deck, you also must side out 5 cards from the Main Deck. Therefore, the Main and Side Deck should always have the same number of cards from when the game was first started.
3. Deck must always be Type 1 legal after siding. For example, you cannot side in a Dominant if it would end up putting you over the Dominant cap, unless you also take out a Dominant from your Main Deck in its place.

Implementation for ROOT:

1. Build 2 nearly identical decks in RTS: one is just a Main Deck for Game 1, the other is a Main Deck combined with a Side Deck. After Game 1 players can go into Deck Editor, take out the appropriate number of cards that is the same size of their Side Deck, and save the deck. Then restart another session with that deck for Game 2. Repeat this process if there is also a Game 3.

Any other thoughts on how we should implement this into ROOT?

cookie monster · « **Reply #15 on:** November 26, 2012, 05:52:39 PM »

I think all players must type a copy of there deck and sideboard so that the opponent can see it and if a player is using a card that was not in the sideboard or the deck then they both know that he is cheating. This way people will be discouraged from editing there decks with non-sideboard cards between rounds.

Master KChief · « **Reply #16 on:** November 26, 2012, 06:01:06 PM »

I like the idea of making deck lists, at least in real life and handing them in to a third party person (such as judges, tournament hosts, etc.). But giving your entire deck list over to an opponent means you pretty much gave them insight to your entire deck. Outside of the honor system, I'm not sure if there really is a way to keep it objectively fair without giving a deck list to your opponent.

cookie monster · « **Reply #17 on:** November 26, 2012, 06:03:59 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on November 26, 2012, 06:01:06 PM

I like the idea of making deck lists, at least in real life and handing them in to a third party person (such as judges, tournament hosts, etc.). But giving your entire deck list over to an opponent means you pretty much gave them insight to your entire deck. Outside of the honor system, I'm not sure if there really is a way to keep it objectively fair without giving a deck list to your opponent.

I did not think of that, maybe a deck list is not such a good idea.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #18 on:** November 26, 2012, 06:36:21 PM »

I like the 3 rules that you proposed, but I think the best way to implement this over RTS would be the way suggested by the "other Prof" below:

Quote from: Professoralstad on September 07, 2012, 03:32:43 PM

start off with a X+15 size deck (where X is your preferred deck size) then when the game starts, shuffle your hand, search your deck for the fifteen cards you don't want, take them into your hand, and set them aside face down (or remove them from the game). Then you can shuffle again and d8 to start the game. It'd be tedious, but it would make sure you're doing it fairly.

My question is whether 15 cards is the right size for a sideboard. That's almost a third of a deck which seems pretty high to me for a "sideboard". You could basically switch out an entire offense or defense with that many cards. That's a lot more than you need to simply deal with a few tech things (ie. site access).

Master KChief · « **Reply #19 on:** November 26, 2012, 07:04:42 PM »

I remember he mentioned that method as well, I just couldn't find the quote for it. That would probably be the best method to keep things fair without having to give your opponent an entire deck list.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on November 26, 2012, 06:36:21 PM

My question is whether 15 cards is the right size for a sideboard. That's almost a third of a deck which seems pretty high to me for a "sideboard". You could basically switch out an entire offense or defense with that many cards. That's a lot more than you need to simply deal with a few tech things (ie. site access).

I also had this same reservation when thinking what number would be most appropriate. 15 was just thrown out there initially because the mainstream CCG's all use 15. 15 might seem like a big number, but it also isn't when considering there are many different cards I would want to side against different matchups. I also wouldn't want the Side Deck number to be too low so as to discourage players from playing with larger decks, as a low number Side Deck would seem to favor the low number Main Decks greater than the high number Main Decks (more cards in deck means less odds of drawing into your sided cards). But maybe you're right, and maybe 10 would work as well. Either way I agree the number should be more closely looked at, and I think the exact number may only be revealed with trial and error.

I also have no qualms about siding out an offense/defense for a brand new offense/defense from the side. The practice has been done in other CCG's with mixed results, as it's generally used as an anti-side tactic (opponent sides against you based on what they saw in Game 1; however they now surprise you with a whole new strategy, theoretically making the cards you sided against them useless). However, this strategy usually involves dedicating the entire Side Deck to it, which means its a calculated risk due to the fact you have no tech sided against any other specific matchups either. Risky, but strategic and thought-provoking.

Gabe · « **Reply #20 on:** November 26, 2012, 07:09:21 PM »

As a player and a tournament host I love the idea of having people submit a deck list, whether or not we ever decide to use sideboards.

Sideboarding would drastically change tournaments which are already pressed for time to get in several events, because it would require 2 out of 3 games instead of just 1 game. Logistically I'm not sure how to make that work.

If we found a way to make 2 out of 3 games work for tournament hosts and time limits then I could easily see a 15 card sideboard. Mark, I assume maybe you haven't played a CCG that uses a sideboard before? There are much greater strategies than just dealing with Site access. Swapping out a large portion of your offense or defense has a lot of strategic value and could be fun, but it's probably not the most effective use of a sideboard.

As for siding in ROOT, I don't see how you could possibly do this over RTS without giving huge opportunities for cheating. However, ROOT has many other issues already so one more probably isn't that big of a deal.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #21 on:** November 26, 2012, 07:30:10 PM »

Quote from: Master KChief on November 26, 2012, 07:04:42 PM

I also wouldn't want the Side Deck number to be too low so as to discourage players from playing with larger decks, as a low number Side Deck would seem to favor the low number Main Decks greater than the high number Main Decks (more cards in deck means less odds of drawing into your sided cards). But maybe you're right, and maybe 10 would work as well. Either way I agree the number should be more closely looked at, and I think the exact number may only be revealed with trial and error.

Perhaps the number of cards in the sidedeck should vary with the size of the deck. What if your sidedeck was the same size as the number of LSs in your deck?

Quote from: Gabe on November 26, 2012, 07:09:21 PM

Sideboarding would drastically change tournaments which are already pressed for time to get in several events, because it would require 2 out of 3 games instead of just 1 game. Logistically I'm not sure how to make that work.

I agree that this would be difficult at most tournaments. However, I guess I could see it for a very limited number of games such as the championship matchup of a smaller tournament, or the semi-finals and finals of the national tournament (assuming a top cut if that ever happened).

Quote from: Gabe on November 26, 2012, 07:09:21 PM

Mark, I assume maybe you haven't played a CCG that uses a sideboard before?

You assume correctly. This is one reason why I'm interested in trying it out to see what it is like.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #22 on:** November 26, 2012, 08:09:38 PM »

To take a step backwards what happens in a 3 game series if it goes
5-0; 4-5; 4-5. Now you have one person who rescued 13 souls and one who rescued 10 but the person with 10 won 2 games???

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #23 on:** November 26, 2012, 08:20:05 PM »

That's a good question. Assuming that it works like professional tennis, the player who won 2 games would be the champion despite rescuing fewer LSs. However I could also see the case for the other player. How does this work in other CCGs?

Master KChief · « **Reply #24 on:** November 26, 2012, 08:34:01 PM »

Best of 3 games is best of 3...the first person to win 2 games is the winner of that match, regardless of the 'overall' score. There have probably been some cases where someone has rescued more total souls overall than the person who took 1st at Nationals, but it's the actual wins that end up mattering.

News:

Author Topic: Siding in Redemption: A near future possibility? (Read 9619 times)

slugfencer