Author Topic: Ironing out side boarding to hopefully try it out in root (Read 21176 times)

Red · « **Reply #100 on:** January 02, 2013, 12:48:57 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on January 02, 2013, 12:18:58 AM

Best of three just doesn't work for in-person tournaments.

Wrong. Magic The Gathering, Yugioh, and Pokémon(In top cut rounds) all make Best of Three work and the Tournaments are most always finished at a decent hour. The argument that there isn't enough time is invalid if you make the time work.

Gabe · « **Reply #101 on:** January 02, 2013, 01:26:48 PM »

Quote from: Chris on January 02, 2013, 11:23:27 AM

Quote from: Bryon on January 02, 2013, 12:18:58 AM
Best of three just doesn't work for in-person tournaments.

I've yet to hear a single reason why this is the case.

I also agree that best of three isn't a good option for Redemption, so I'll explain why I believe it doesn't work.

The driving force behind it assumes that the major demographic at Redemption tournaments are represented by the type of players commenting on this topic, that is, highly skilled and competitive. While that may be true to varying degrees for other CCGs (I'm only experienced with MTG and I know it to be true there), it's not true of Redemption. That presents us with at least two problems;

Time - By suggesting that we only use best of 3 in top cut, I assume that most people at least understand that we cannot extend entire event to compensate for 3 games per opponent. But playing three games per opponent, even just top cut, at the current time limits will extend the length of a tournament significantly.

Reducing the time per round isn't realistic. I've hosted many tournaments and attended even more. Most rounds have at least one, often several games, that go to the time limit. Also, people already complain that slower decks cannot compete because of time limits. Reducing the time limit will only increase that.

Primary Purpose - What is the primary purpose for Cactus Games offering tournaments? Fun and fellowship. That's the reason every tournament I've ever attended is run in swiss style (as opposed to single elimination) . It's not fun for players to sit around for hours while they wait for their next chance to play. Top cut only caters to the vocal, highly competitive minority. As part of that minority I think I would really enjoy top cut with best of 3 and sideboards, but I cannot support it because I don't believe it's what is best for the game or community as a whole.

Isildur · « **Reply #102 on:** January 02, 2013, 03:25:16 PM »

Quote from: Chris on January 02, 2013, 11:23:27 AM

I've yet to hear a single reason why this is the case. Only use it in top cut, bump up the time limit, and only a small percentage of people are affected by it. Saying "it doesn't work" when every single successful CCG uses it is not a good argument to me.

We have yet to hear a argument as to why in-game siding doesnt work

Chris · « **Reply #103 on:** January 02, 2013, 03:54:57 PM »

Gabe, I'll respond to your post later, but I did want to thank you for giving your reasons. Most of the posts from Elders against it thus far in this topic have simply cited "time issues," and that's frustrating to me, so even though I disagree with you, I appreciate the post.

Quote from: Isildur on January 02, 2013, 03:25:16 PM

We have yet to hear a argument as to why in-game siding doesnt work

This topic is filled with solid reasons for why in-game siding likely wouldn't work. That's not to mention the fact that a lot of people in this topic who are for between-game siding outright dislike in-game siding. There's also years of testing from other CCGs that suggest that between-game siding (and best 2 out of 3) might be the best option, if only because all three of the major CCGs use it. As I noted, most of the posts from Elders in this topic haven't been specific in the reasons they don't like best 2 out of 3 before Gabe's post.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #104 on:** January 02, 2013, 06:02:23 PM »

Between game sideboarding would seem to only be for a handful of tournaments at most, none of which I would be attending. I can get behind in-game sideboarding if the conditions are carefully worked out, if for no other reason, to allow more players a chance to try it. I will always be against Top Cut, but since it would not affect me or my tournaments directly, I have chosen not to be particularly vocal about it. I do, however, find the idea of sideboarding intriguing and would like to offer my input on the stipulations that could make it work for Redemption.

Master KChief · « **Reply #105 on:** January 02, 2013, 06:11:50 PM »

Absolutely, feel free to share your ideas YMT.

Alex_Olijar · « **Reply #106 on:** January 02, 2013, 06:32:31 PM »

It doesn't work. Pokemon's best of 3 doesn't work because the time limit is too short. Redemption's would be too.

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #107 on:** January 02, 2013, 08:21:39 PM »

MKC, these were my suggestions from earlier (what I prefer is bolded):

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on December 30, 2012, 10:28:52 AM

Other things to consider:

1.) If we access the sideboard only when we draw a lost soul, then we are at a disadvantage if our Lost Souls are pulled out of our deck by other methods (i.e. the Revealer LS).
2.) I think that the sideboard should be able to be accessed frequently, but that cards taken out from the deck should not be able to be accessed until the other cards in the sideboard have been exhausted, if at all.
3.) I think the cards taken out from the current deck should be revealed before exchanging for a sideboard card, just to be a deterrent for cheating. The sideboard cards would have already been checked by the host, so they do not need to be revealed.
4.) MKC mentioned deck-building rule circumvention, which I would be concerned about. I think the sideboard should be restricted. Can a player really have 7 AoCp in his sideboard and just keep bringing them in once they get ET? What about Haman's Plots? Site-lockout would be much easier if you had seven sites in your deck and seven sites in your sideboard. I think normal deck-building rules need to apply to the sideboard. The host would check in the deck normally, and then the sideboard cards as if they are part of the same deck. I would not support a completely unrestricted sideboard. I think one of the sideboard cards should be required to be a LS to keep the deck-buiding guidelines. There are plenty of strategic uses of a LS in sideboard.

For #2, the "if at all" is what I wanted to emphasize. I still think they should be removed completely.

Bryon · « **Reply #108 on:** January 06, 2013, 11:28:46 AM »

Quote from: Chris on January 02, 2013, 03:54:57 PM

Most of the posts from Elders against it thus far in this topic have simply cited "time issues,"

I already posted that I don't like top cut for time issues for the hosts, and for the fact that some people like to play defense, and some people like to play big decks.

For the sake of the integrity of deck building and the fun and fellowship of the players, we can't shorten the time limits any more than they already are. Several players over the years have begged for an increase in the time limit (to 50 minutes for Type 1 2-player) to allow for more variety in deck building. Shortening the time limit will squash deck building options even more than a 45-minute time limit does.

The "but top players almost always play fast" argument doesn't hold water either. Back when our regional tournaments had 35+ players, we had games go to time at the top tables. I've been to most national tournaments since Apostles released, and I've seen several top table games go to time.

So, you are stuck with adding 2 or 3 rounds worth of time for each best-of-three game that you want to play. As a host, I know that doesn't work.

If siding is going to happen in face-to-face tournaments, we will have to find a way to make in-game siding happen.

You can't yet say that in-game siding doesn't work, since
a) it hasn't been tried
b) it has worked in at least one other CCG (Middle Earth)
c) most importantly - there are hundreds (if not thousands) of rule combinations that can be tried and adjusted in order to arrive at a workable ruleset for in-game siding. We can adjust what goes into the sideboard, when it is accessed, what to do with the cards that are accessed, and what to do with the cards that are removed from the hand (or deck as another option) to make room for the card accessed from the sideboard. Only after we have tried several of these options can you even begin to say that it won't work.

Chris · « **Reply #109 on:** January 06, 2013, 12:34:49 PM »

Quote from: Bryon on January 06, 2013, 11:28:46 AM

The "but top players almost always play fast" argument doesn't hold water either. Back when our regional tournaments had 35+ players, we had games go to time at the top tables. I've been to most national tournaments since Apostles released, and I've seen several top table games go to time.

But this isn't the way the game works anymore. It doesn't matter if you've been around since Apostles, since the game is completely different now than it was even after the release of Disciples. The top ten had one defense deck, and as far as I know, Greeson didn't have a single time out. That said, it appears there is enough opposition to best two out of three that it won't work out right now, so there's no sense arguing for it further. I'd rather put my efforts into top cut.

Out of game siding and in-game siding are entirely different beasts. It isn't so much that it won't work, it's that I think it's simply a bad idea. I think it's changing things about the game for the sake of changing them. I don't like the idea of essentially having seven extra cards in your deck with some complicated rules dictating how we use them.

Isildur · « **Reply #110 on:** January 06, 2013, 03:37:22 PM »

Quote

I think it's changing things about the game for the sake of changing them. I don't like the idea of essentially having seven extra cards in your deck with some complicated rules dictating how we use them.

Whats complicated about adding a card to your deck? You get the card from your sideboard and you shuffle it in your deck at the appropriate time as established by the rules. Its really not that complicated when you compare it to any of Redemption's other stupidly complicated rules.

Bryon · « **Reply #111 on:** January 06, 2013, 07:52:51 PM »

Quote from: Chris on January 06, 2013, 12:34:49 PM

Out of game siding and in-game siding are entirely different beasts. It isn't so much that it won't work, it's that I think it's simply a bad idea. I think it's changing things about the game for the sake of changing them. I don't like the idea of essentially having seven extra cards in your deck with some complicated rules dictating how we use them.

Not having a sideboard is an option, too. It sounded like players wanted options to deal with certain things. For example, are you facing a site deck and don't have much in your deck to combat it? Include a few access cards in your sideboard. Your deck will work just fine against 90% of decks without ever accessing your sideboard. Including a sideboard just gives you options to deal with the one or two opposing strategies that could pose a problem for it.

Chris · « **Reply #112 on:** January 07, 2013, 12:09:58 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on January 06, 2013, 07:52:51 PM

Quote from: Chris on January 06, 2013, 12:34:49 PM
Out of game siding and in-game siding are entirely different beasts. It isn't so much that it won't work, it's that I think it's simply a bad idea. I think it's changing things about the game for the sake of changing them. I don't like the idea of essentially having seven extra cards in your deck with some complicated rules dictating how we use them.
Not having a sideboard is an option, too. It sounded like players wanted options to deal with certain things. For example, are you facing a site deck and don't have much in your deck to combat it? Include a few access cards in your sideboard. Your deck will work just fine against 90% of decks without ever accessing your sideboard. Including a sideboard just gives you options to deal with the one or two opposing strategies that could pose a problem for it.

I would rather have no sideboard than an in-game sideboard. For the example you gave, isn't that the point of proper deckbuilding? Preparing for multiple strategies, or otherwise risk encountering them and not putting anything in? That's just encouraging less strategy with no cost.

Gabe · « **Reply #113 on:** January 07, 2013, 12:32:26 AM »

Quote from: Chris on January 07, 2013, 12:09:58 AM

I would rather have no sideboard than an in-game sideboard. For the example you gave, isn't that the point of proper deckbuilding? Preparing for multiple strategies, or otherwise risk encountering them and not putting anything in? That's just encouraging less strategy with no cost.

Your post comes across as someone who's upset that things aren't going their way. Maybe that's not the case, but that's how reads.

In game side boarding allows for a several new strategies. It could be used to significantly hurt unbalanced decks which are fairly common. It creates situations where people will use counters that would not otherwise find room in a deck. You seem to be a big proponent of side boarding so it's at least worth considering and trying. Unless your attitude is "my way or the highway".

Chris · « **Reply #114 on:** January 07, 2013, 01:07:07 AM »

Quote from: Gabe on January 07, 2013, 12:32:26 AM

Your post comes across as someone who's upset that things aren't going their way. Maybe that's not the case, but that's how reads.

In game side boarding allows for a several new strategies. It could be used to significantly hurt unbalanced decks which are fairly common. It creates situations where people will use counters that would not otherwise find room in a deck. You seem to be a big proponent of side boarding so it's at least worth considering and trying. Unless your attitude is "my way or the highway".

Nah, that's not really the case here. I agree that it does allow for new strategies, and speaking as a speed player, I'm mostly looking at all of the ways it could benefit a speed deck, especially spread offenses. I also think we have a few cards, like HSR, HHI, Nazareth, and Covenant with Death, that can pretty effectively shut down several different offenses, but rarely find their way into decks because they also affect the person playing them. I don't like the prospect of being able to utilize sideboard to abuse cards like that, by only bringing them into a deck when it's clear they'll be more advantageous to the person using them.

My main reason I don't like it though, is simply that it's allowing larger deck sizes with a small cost. For instance, I would always keep Birth Foretold in my sideboard so long as I was using angels, so that, if it got down to the wire and it was clear every little bit would help, I could add it and hope for the best, especially if I was using Zadok Anoints Solomon or Search. Only using it when a soul is placed from your deck into your Land of Bondage (which is how I feel that rule should be implemented) would help alleviate this, but not enough to make me like the idea. I'm staunchly opposed to using the dominant-only in-game sideboard (despite the fact that, on paper, it's by far my favorite) because I firmly believe that sideboards should not be mandatory to play, and while technically a dominant-only sideboard wouldn't be mandatory, realistically, it is.

ChristianSoldier · « **Reply #115 on:** January 07, 2013, 03:42:51 AM »

Quote from: Chris on January 07, 2013, 01:07:07 AM

Nah, that's not really the case here. I agree that it does allow for new strategies, and speaking as a speed player, I'm mostly looking at all of the ways it could benefit a speed deck, especially spread offenses. I also think we have a few cards, like HSR, HHI, Nazareth, and Covenant with Death, that can pretty effectively shut down several different offenses, but rarely find their way into decks because they also affect the person playing them. I don't like the prospect of being able to utilize sideboard to abuse cards like that, by only bringing them into a deck when it's clear they'll be more advantageous to the person using them.

That is actually the main reason sideboards exist, to put cards that rarely find their way into decks because of their limited usefulness (only certain decks or strategies) and will give the player playing it an advantage.

Example: I was playing at an MtG tournament and I had in my sideboard several copies of a card that exiles (removed from the game, sort of) every card that goes into discard piles (both mine and my opponent) this card did nothing to my deck (I can never access my discard pile anyway) but in my deck it would have taken up a valuable slot that could be used for more firepower, however had I come against a deck that was based on recurring cards from the discard pile massively it could have given me a major advantage (to the point that it would be very one sided if I had drawn it), it never happened (due to not seeing that kind of deck).

In redemption terms (regardless of what kind of sideboard is used this is still true). You come against a deck that uses searches, lots of searches, of course you are going to side in cards like Nazareth and maybe Hezekiah's Signet Ring to give yourself an advantage. Saying that you don't like the idea of using sideboards to take advantages of powerful, but overspecialized card then you are missing the point of sideboards, because that is what they are for.

Red · « **Reply #116 on:** January 07, 2013, 11:22:19 AM »

Echoing ChristianSoldier the only purposes of a sideboard is to punish decks that have a good matchup to you for the most part.

Chris · « **Reply #117 on:** January 07, 2013, 12:59:37 PM »

The difference is that out-of-game sideboards have their own sense of strategy behind them. You're given the chance to retool your deck to help you in the next two games, however, so is your opponent, so throwing in a Nazareth because your opponent is more search-heavy than you are might not end up benefiting you at all, because both players are given the opportunity to make major changes. I still hold that an in-game sideboard will decrease the strategy behind deck building, by no longer forcing players to make difficult choices. Why worry about packing in that extra battle winner, when I can throw it in my sideboard and take it out if necessary?

Josh · « **Reply #118 on:** January 07, 2013, 01:18:39 PM »

Quote from: Chris on January 07, 2013, 01:07:07 AM

My main reason I don't like it though, is simply that it's allowing larger deck sizes with a small cost.

Why is this a problem? Aren't we always looking for ways to get bigger decks more competitive (without encouraging decks that always time out)?

I'm starting to wonder if some of the opponents to in-game siding are against it simply because successful in-game siding would be the death of out-game siding, and along with that best 2 of 3.

I'm also starting to really reconsider my earlier post about in-game siding not having a chance in the game. The following is simply me thinking out loud:

If a card is sideboarded in every time a LS is drawn, faster decks would get their sideboard cards faster, because they draw their LS faster.

If the card that is sideboarded in gets shuffled in the deck, then that is a lot more shuffles per game. That's a negative, but if it is the only one, then I can live with that. But this also favors faster decks, as they can draw/search their way to the sideboarded cards faster.

If the card that is sideboarded in goes to hand (say, by permanent exchange), the advantage goes to the person that gets to sideboard more often, since they get immediate access to the new cards. So this would probably not work with sideboarding when LS are drawn.

If a card is sideboarded every time an opponent redeems a LS in your land of bondage, the person who has sideboarded more will always be losing, at that point in time. SoG and NJ allow the opponent an automatic 2 card sideboard. Since the purpose of sideboarding is to "adapt" to your opponent's deck, if you view each LS as a mini "game" that the Redeemer wins and the Relinquisher loses, sideboarding after LS are rescued allows the "loser" to adapt and be better prepared for the next mini "game". And if sideboard cards ever go into deck and not to hand, Speed will always rule with sideboards, since they will get the sideboarded cards faster.

After thinking out loud, I am in favor of in-game sideboards that involve sideboarding only after an opponent redeems a LS from your land of bondage, where the sideboarded card is exchanged with a card in your hand permanently. (Obviously this would need to be playtested, especially to deal with Falling Away/2 and 3 liner LS/etc., but without any playtesting experience availble, it sounds good to me on paper.)

browarod · « **Reply #119 on:** January 07, 2013, 02:16:27 PM »

I haven't read the entirety of the 3 middle pages of this thread, so this may have already been brought up, but I figured I'd post it anyway. An alternative to "exchange a card with your sideboard when you draw a LS" would be "exchange a card with your sideboard when your opponent draws a LS". This gives the opponent of a speed deck the advantage rather than the speed player.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #120 on:** January 07, 2013, 04:15:34 PM »

Quote from: browarod on January 07, 2013, 02:16:27 PM

An alternative to "exchange a card with your sideboard when you draw a LS" would be "exchange a card with your sideboard when your opponent draws a LS".

I like this as long as cards exchanged for go straight to hand. That way if someone attacks me with an AutO+Sam+Armorbearer+Ishmaiah+Asahel+Israelite Archer+Beneniah(WC) and pulls out a LS in the 7 cards that they just drew, then I could exchange for my Goliath in my sideboard to block them and get rid of their big band in addition to putting back a few cards.

Isildur · « **Reply #121 on:** January 07, 2013, 04:45:59 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 07, 2013, 04:15:34 PM

Quote from: browarod on January 07, 2013, 02:16:27 PM
An alternative to "exchange a card with your sideboard when you draw a LS" would be "exchange a card with your sideboard when your opponent draws a LS".
I like this as long as cards exchanged for go straight to hand. That way if someone attacks me with an AutO+Sam+Armorbearer+Ishmaiah+Asahel+Israelite Archer+Beneniah(WC) and pulls out a LS in the 7 cards that they just drew, then I could exchange for my Goliath in my sideboard to block them and get rid of their big band in addition to putting back a few cards.

Every game that has used a sideboard (even in-game) uses the sideboard as a extension of your deck NOT a extension of your hand. I see no reason for us to do exchanging cards to hand when no other game ever made does this...

Gabe · « **Reply #122 on:** January 07, 2013, 05:01:36 PM »

Quote from: Isildur on January 07, 2013, 04:45:59 PM

Every game that has used a sideboard (even in-game) uses the sideboard as a extension of your deck NOT a extension of your hand. I see no reason for us to do exchanging cards to hand when no other game ever made does this...

I agree that siding directly to hand doesn't seem like the best choice, but that's not a valid reason to completely eliminate it as an option and even allow others to try it if they want to experiment with different options for side board rules.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #123 on:** January 07, 2013, 05:05:37 PM »

In general, I'm not a fan of sideboard cards going straight to hand. However, IF the switch only happened when your opponent drew a LS, then I think I would like it. It would only be an immediate boost to your defense, since your opponent is probably drawing LSs on their turn. And it would be nice to have something Redemption that helped defense more than offense

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #124 on:** January 07, 2013, 06:35:31 PM »

This would discourage people from including cards that draw out opponents' LSs, though. I still oppose the sideboard only being accessed when LSs are drawn by anybody.

News:

Author Topic: Ironing out side boarding to hopefully try it out in root (Read 21176 times)

Chris

Chris

Chris

Chris

Chris

browarod