Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I understand that. But the cyclic nature of it just makes it an extension of your main deck. I could probably get more behind it if you were not allowed to shuffle back in cards already placed in the extra deck.

So if the only usefulness of this is end end game...as in, nearing decking out, something that doesn't happen too terribly often...what exactly is the point of using it towards a means of making the overall game, not just a specific time point, more strategic?

I don't like Bryon's idea on its face, though if I ever get around to testing it, I could be persuaded to change my mind. I was under the impression that most of the talk of siding was if we also implementing top cut, and it would only be for top cut. This would (mostly) solve the problem of time issues. Is that not the case?

I agree with Chris and Kchief. The real trouble with siding in Redemption is time. It already takes at least 40 minutes to win a game in type 1. Adding side boarding and 2 out of 3 games to the mix just adds more time.

Also I want to add that making the sideboard exactly 10 cards is perfect for this. Even if your deck is 100 cards...10 card side board...that's it.

Although playing the best 2 out of 3 is ideal, it's really not realistic for real life tournaments. If I were to support a sideboard option for Redemption (which I do like the idea but the implementation is tricky) I could get behind Bryon's suggestion of in-game side boarding when a Lost Soul is drawn and the sideboard size is the same as the number of Lost Souls in the deck.

Although playing the best 2 out of 3 is ideal, it's really not realistic for real life tournaments. If I were to support a sideboard option for Redemption (which I do like the idea but the implementation is tricky) I could get behind Bryon's suggestion of in-game side boarding when a Lost Soul is drawn and the sideboard size is the same as the number of Lost Souls in the deck.

Would this need limits from things like DoU because playing DoU and other soul shuffling cards could provide you a huge advantage from the sideboard

There are some variations to this that could be tested.

1) Rather than shuffle the sideboard card, you do a straight exchange of the card in hand with a card in sideboard, then draw your replacement. - Dominants not allowed in sideboard.  Maybe not single-colored sites, either.

2) dominants only go in sideboard, not in main deck.  You don't get a dominant in your deck until you have drawn a lost soul.  You draw lots of souls, you get lots of dominants shuffled into your deck.  Using this rule, we could double the size of the sideboard to allow for the 7 dominants and 7 other cards.  Or maybe still just a 7 card cap and really put the squeeze on dominant use.

3) You pick up a card from sideboard and remove a card in your hand from the game, then draw your replacement.  Same restrictions as the first one.  This is similar to the first one, but you never get back what you "gave up" for the sideboarded card.

4) Time the access to the sideboard to an opponent rescuing a lost soul, rather than you drawing one.  This gives you fewer times to access the sideboard, but it usually allows you to see an opponent's hero before making your first selection.

My preference is to time the access to sideboard to the drawing of a lost soul, since this is the one part of Redemption that critics can point to as odd - you can get a lucky draw of zero lost souls and really slow your opponent's progress toward victory.  A zero lost soul draw should come with a cost - no access to your sideboard.  But option 4 might also work, especially to address MKC's concern about drawing several lost souls in the opening draw.  Option 2 also addresses that concern, since drawing several souls early gives you several doms in your deck early.  Also, the previously mentioned ways to return souls to deck could help if options 1, 3, or the original are used.

Out of the four you posted the first is still the best.
2nd one: defeats the purpose of a sideboard you want to be swapping strategies mid game not just some random card for your deck.
3rd one: the same thing as the first.
4th one: is kind of lame since your only going to get three chances to swap cards.

Is there any reason we couldn't just simply make it another action a player may perform during their Prep phase? Is there any downside to that?

If the sideboard is the same size as the lost soul cap (or like 15 cards) I dont see a problem with this.

The more I look at it the more I like #2 from Byron a whole lot. It keeps growing on me. I love the balance of not getting to your dom's if you soul drought an opponent

I can go on board with a 7 card sideboard.

I am in favor of a best 2 out of 3 for testing purposes. As for the IRL concerns with this format, wouldn't timed rounds take care of these concerns?

I think DOMS should not be allowed in sideboard so that the player couldn't side into more DOMS after boarding.

So are you happy with me supporting your baby despite not much interest being shown in it ever becoming a reality? 

Except there's a stark difference between 'support' and 'let's just morph this into another completely different idea that serves my own agenda, we'll just adhere to the board slogan of take what you can get for now and revisit this issue in another decade or so'.

Of course not, you just complain that I'm not moving fast enough. 

If moving at the pace of revisiting an issue is half a year, then clearly everyone must be moving too fast for you. I'm not the only one complaining, so something certainly must be wrong.

And when 2 of the most active elders get on board with sideboarding and support some alternatives (which make it MUCH more likely that this idea actually happens at some point) are you happy then?

Let's make it very clear there is a huge difference between what was suggested in the original post and what is being suggested in later posts. Does that invalidate the original point brought up? No, so perhaps for once you could actually address it, and how very simple it is to actually apply it towards ROOT.

Of course not, you just complain that they aren't making ALL of your changes (2 of 3, and top cut) at the same time.

You're just grasping at straws here. Traditional siding with best 2 of 3 is a necessary function for it to even work, so trying to make an argument about not getting all changes proposed really holds no water, because almost everyone is capable of inferring best 2 of 3 pretty much goes without saying. And as far as I'm aware, this thread is primarily about how siding applies to ROOT, therefore top cut hasn't even been the central focus from anyone here.

Basically you just need to fix your attitude of negativity, and be thankful for what you're getting.

'Negativity' is a necessary function of criticism. I'm sorry if you can't take it, but you should be thankful someone is in your face about it instead of fueling a delusion. And if everyone simply accepted the first thing handed out to them, then none of the real issues would ever get ironed out. Why would anyone be ok with the Atari 2600 you gave them when an Xbox 360 serves the community so much better?

If 2 out of 3 side boarding is never going to happen in actuality then I am in support of trying in game side boarding and I really like the idea of having 50 card minimums with all dom's being side boarded.

Jerome and I are going to try this idea a couple times today.

I will post exactly what rules we use and what we think through the couple games we play.