Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Redemption® Resources and Thinktank => Topic started by: jbeers285 on December 27, 2012, 01:14:30 PM
-
I couldn't seem to figure out where the main side boarding post went, so I started this one.
1. Obviously ROOT would need to be best of 3.
2. How many cards are going to be in the side board, a percentage of your deck size, a set number like 15 . . .?
3. How long will players have between games to change cards in their side board?
4. Do we need to take measures to ensure people aren't cheating, if so what measures?
5. Any other thoughts questions or concerns need worked out? If so what?
-
what is side boarding?
-
Side boarding is having an additional amount of cards on the side. After the first game with your opponent you get to exchange cards from your side boarding with cards in your deck. Your opponent does the same thing and you play game 2. If necessary you repeat the steps and play game 3.
-
one way to fix it where people cant cheat is they have to turn in a copy of the cards in their sideboard to either the host or someone that is not in the tournament so that after a game, you give your oipponent the list of cards you uased, and they are checked. something like that would work. Or, send your opponent the lists after your game, leaving your game up, and then they can check.
-
Wyatt, there was a whole discussion on sideboarding here (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/official-tournaments/siding-in-redemption-a-near-future-possibility/) that you should read up on. Additionally, a lot of the questions you ask can be answered if you utilize the search function, which can be found in the upper right hand corner of the page. :)
I love the concept of side-boarding, but finding the proper number to use is tricky, because most decks don't go past 50 or 51 cards, and certainly not past 57. This means that even a small number like 15 means you can essentially replace an entire offense or defense if you wanted to, which may not be desirable. My thought is we should either use a very small number, like 5, or use a larger number like 15 and discontinue checking in multiple decks (which I'm an advocate of regardless, since that heavily favors players with more money). Deck checking is tricky, because even top-tier players are switching cards the night before big tournaments. Having to submit a deck list before the tournament is a good idea on paper, but for those of us who literally build our decks the night before, that's easier said and done. I was trying to purchase cards for my deck about five minutes before T12P deck checking closed this year, and I was not the only one. Yet, it seems like with a sidebar, some such option is required. As an aside, I also support discontinuing deck checking at the beginning of large tournaments in favor of random deck checks throughout the day, since that will make people more honest than the current system anyway.
-
I was talking about with ROOT, to turn in a list to someone. he was talking about Trying it out in root, so that was my Idea for that. in a actual tournament, it would be much easier. have a texp pack clear sleeve and put the cards in that you want to use for sideboard, and no messing with them untill about five minutes before the game you play or something like that.
-
Maybe the number could be half of the number of LS in your deck (round up). This way, small decks can't replace their entire offense and larger decks have the advantage of more selections.
-
This would be 4 cards in most decks I'm not a huge fan of using so few cards in a side board it seems to defeat the purpose.
I think we at least need to have as many as lost souls in deck so if play 57 you get 8 and 56 and under 7
-
Finding a good number for the side is just going to take a bit of trial and error in ROOT. From personal experience in other CCG's that use a side deck, 15 cards never seemed enough, you always wanted to fit in one more card that could help...and that was playing with 40 card decks. I don't find the side deck being used to fuel switching out an entire offense or defense to be a problem at all...after all, that's essentially what side decks are used for, to give yourself (hopefully) better matchups against certain decks. It's also not a practice that is anywhere near highly used since it's focus is so narrow in range, rather than having a metaphorical toolbox to deal with most any matchup.
I liked the idea of having a side deck equal to the number of lost souls per deck, I think that's a great starting point to testing it out. Although I am also a big fan of having just one concrete number across all decks. I also liked the idea of doing away with more than one deck in a tournament in favor of a larger side deck...side decks do what multiple decks do, only a lot better. Sure, Plot takes a hit from this change, but that was kind of the reason multiple decks were dropped from 10 to 3 in the first place. -_-
-
In order to attempt this in root we would need to come to a consensus on the number to try on root. I am willing to play people in rts with sideboards and try different numbers of side board cards in order to get some valuable feed back to give to mark. I believe this would give us an opportunity to nail down a number of cards to try using in root.
We could also post feed back in this thread for everyone to view.
-
1. Obviously ROOT would need to be best of 3.
2. How many cards are going to be in the side board, a percentage of your deck size, a set number like 15 . . .?
3. How long will players have between games to change cards in their side board?
4. Do we need to take measures to ensure people aren't cheating, if so what measures?
5. Any other thoughts questions or concerns need worked out? If so what?
1. I agree, that for ROOT the number of games would have to be most VPs out of 3 games.
So a player would win if they:
won 2 games completely = 6VPs
won 1 game and had 2 ties = 6VPs
won 1 game with a tie and a timeout loss = 5.5VPs
won 1 game and had 2 timeout losses = 5VPs
won 1 game with a timeout win = 5 VPs
2. For number of cards in the sideboard, I would appreciate some feedback in this thread from people who actually try this out using different sizes. My current leaning would be to just use the number of LSs in a deck.
3. My current leaning is to allow NO time between games to change things, but have the sideboard actually be part of the deck on RTS.
4. My current leaning is still to use the "other Prof's" suggestion for accountability, which is basically to start with a deck of X+Y (where X is your preferred deck size, and Y is the sideboard size). Then when the game starts to search your deck for the Y cards that you don't want, take them into your hand, and set them aside face-down.
Then you can shuffle all your remaining cards back into your deck and d8 to start the game.
5. My other question is whether it is better to use sideboarding between games, or rather to do in-game sideboarding as brought up in the previous thread.
-
I like the X+Y approach. It really makes since.
-
I like:
- lost soul count = dominant cap = site cap = Sideboard cap. Simplicity in deck-building rules makes things simpler on judges and players.
- in-game use of sideboard. Best-of-3 just doesn't work in most tournaments. My favorite option ties access to your sideboard to your drawing of lost souls. Whenever you draw a lost soul and put it in play, you may place a card from your hand into your sideboard to shuffle a card from your sideboard into your deck. Then draw 1.
Do those work?
-
that is an interesting concept.so you can get rid of a card that is usles because something else was killed to get a card you can still use out. I like that.
-
I like:
- lost soul count = dominant cap = site cap = Sideboard cap. Simplicity in deck-building rules makes things simpler on judges and players.
- in-game use of sideboard. Best-of-3 just doesn't work in most tournaments. My favorite option ties access to your sideboard to your drawing of lost souls. Whenever you draw a lost soul and put it in play, you may place a card from your hand into your sideboard to shuffle a card from your sideboard into your deck. Then draw 1.
Do those work?
I really like these ideas. Consistency in deck building amounts helps occasional hosts (such as myself) keep the rules straight, and a built-in way to access your sideboard would be a great way to implement it. Question for you Gabe: Would the exchange/shuffle/draw after a LS replace the plain old draw currently in the game, or does it come after as an extra draw? If it's the former, I think that's fine; however, I think the latter might be a bit too strong. Being able to draw an extra card every time you draw a LS for the simple cost of exchanging the worst card in your hand for a better one in your sideboard seems a bit much.
-
I wasn't really tied to either way. I think making the exchange/shuffle happen before the replacement draw is fine.
-
Being able to draw an extra card every time you draw a LS for the simple cost of exchanging the worst card in your hand for a better one in your sideboard seems a bit much.
Actually I don't think it's too strong. If you don't get to draw a card for the one you put in your sideboard, then you actually just decreased your hand size by 1 just to have the chance to draw a card later.
I think that if we go the route of ingame sideboarding, then when you trade a card in your hand for a card in your sideboard, that you should either:
- put the sideboard card directly in your hand
or
- shuffle it into your draw pile, and draw 1 card
-
I originally thought to "put the sideboard card directly into hand," but scrapped it since everyone would just sideboard Son of God. :)
-
While in-game siding is plausible towards staying within the time limits of normal Redemption tournaments, one of the key benefits of traditional siding was also the added benefit of best 2 of 3. That is perhaps the bigger issue here, even moreso than siding itself. It's just that traditional siding goes hand in hand with best 2 of 3 as well.
I also have reservations of trading cards in hand only at very specific times for sideboard cards. Your non-optimal cards will not always float to hand when you need to side them, especially only every time you draw a lost soul. It sort of defeats the purpose of siding those unproductive cards out completely and replacing them with cards that serve a better matchup if the stars don't align and you don't even get the chance to do so.
-
I originally thought to "put the sideboard card directly into hand," but scrapped it since everyone would just sideboard Son of God. :)
Yeah, that's a good point. Well then I definitely think that you should be able to draw a card to replace the one you traded to the sideboard.
As for the 2 of 3 thing, that can work in ROOT, but it really has no chance of happening in big tournaments for all games. The only way I can possibly see that working would be for the championship round of a small tourney or the semi-finals and championship round of a larger tournament that was using the top-cut system for the final 4.
-
I also have reservations of trading cards in hand only at very specific times for sideboard cards. Your non-optimal cards will not always float to hand when you need to side them, especially only every time you draw a lost soul. It sort of defeats the purpose of siding those unproductive cards out completely and replacing them with cards that serve a better matchup if the stars don't align and you don't even get the chance to do so.
If I don't draw lost souls, then I probably don't need to get a sideboard card to stay competitive in the game. Since drawing lost souls is generally considered a "bad luck" part of the game, I thought we could mitigate that aspect by giving the player a simultaneous "optional reward."
As for siding out "unproductive" cards, that isn't the only strategy. I'd generally sideboard out a card that I can't use now, but know I will need later. For example, I could sideboard out my New Jerusalem or Falling Away or AoCp, and shuffle it back into my deck the next time I draw a lost soul. The cards you sideboard are only the cards you can't use at the moment. You generally can find one of those in your hand.
-
I'd generally sideboard out a card that I can't use now, but know I will need later. For example, I could sideboard out my New Jerusalem or Falling Away or AoCp, and shuffle it back into my deck the next time I draw a lost soul. The cards you sideboard are only the cards you can't use at the moment. You generally can find one of those in your hand.
Then this isn't truly siding, this is simply extending your deck by cycling cards over and over. This proposed utility is essentially just an extension of your in-game main deck that gets around the lost soul ratio rule.
-
except there are still going to be X number of cards that you cant use.
-
That's not true, you can still use any card you wish, even the ones that are placed into the 'extra' deck.
Another glaring problem I saw was the drawing of lost souls on the first turn of the game. Since no decks or strategies have been revealed yet through gameplay, the extra deck is useless at this point. It also lowers the chances considerably of actually seeing one of your cards from the extra deck in your main deck (drawing souls on the first turn lowers the chance of drawing souls on subsequent turns, coupled with the shuffling of the actual sided card).
-
what I'm saying i that you will still only be allowed to play the amount of cards that are allowed with the number of souls in your deck. you still will only be able to play up to 56 cards with seven lost sou7ld, its just that you can have more options ready, in case you really do need them. like if you want some artifacts like Golden Calf in case you run into a FbtNB deck and you dont want to keep it in your deck. you still are able to use it, but you have to decide on what to take out first.
-
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.
-
I like the Idea of it. really, it doesnt matter about the cycle, because it screws you up. the only way it would do any good is if at the end of the game when you have ten cards in your deck you draw your last two lost souls, then it could be practical. otherwise, it would take too long for you to get the card back for it to really matter.
-
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? ???
-
it is still usefull, but that is the only time it will actually make a huge difference is what I'm saying. not that it is only useful at the end of the game.It is so that you can prepare for more stuff without having a huge deck still.
-
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 was under that impression as well, since IRL games do not have the time necessary to facilitate siding with best of 3, it would be best to reserve it for top cut at high level tournaments. ROOT can also obviously use siding and best 2 of 3 as well.
-
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.
-
I think we should test this in individual games to see what works best. Im thinking around 10-15 cards. or depending on the deck size like lost souls. one per soul would work well.
-
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.
-
then for the last game, you can do the best of three thing or something like that.
-
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
-
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
I don't really think so, but testing it out will tell. Using things like DoU could give added strategy if you find a way to take advantage of swapping cards in and out a lot. You still only have 7 cards to swap in a normal T1 deck.
-
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.
-
I prefer the origanal one.
-
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.
-
I gotta admit, I REALLY loved Bryon's idea #2. Not towards siding per se, but the whole 'putting the squeeze' on Dominants in general. I think it's brilliant.
I would like the sideboard more accessible during a game than just limiting it to the drawing of lost souls. It seems very situational, benefits late game extremely more than early or mid, and is vulnerable to the hiccup of drawing souls on the first turn. 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?
-
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.
-
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...really put the squeeze on dominant use.
I really like this idea. It's the first time in the game that there is some drawback to NOT drawing LSs early, and the first time there is something to appreciate if you DO draw LSs early. Having your sideboard be equal to your number of LSs would fit nicely with your number of dominants also being equal to your number of LSs. By the time you get all your LSs out, you also have all your dominants in your deck.
As for the people talking about best 2 out of 3 and top-cut, I think we've got to be realistic about this. I don't think there is enough support for top-cut, or playing 3 games in a round for that to happen anytime soon. The more changes required at the same time, the less likely it is to occur. But if Bryon, Gabe, I, and perhaps others are all willing to pursue some of these other options, then some sort of sideboard seems possible. Let's take what we can get for now, and we can re-examine some of these other issues later.
-
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
-
and we can re-examine some of these other issues later.
And I surmise this is the main reason best 2 of 3 and siding has taken months to even be implemented into ROOT. In fact, your comment doesn't even make sense, when the entire premise of the OP's first post was to evaluate best 2 of 3 and siding towards ROOT in the first place. What exactly is the point of procrastinating and making even more excuses instead of evaluating what's on the table now?
-
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.
-
In this case MKC, you are behaving as an idealist, while I am behaving as a pragmatist. When you first brought up sideboarding, 2 or 3 format, topcut, etc. There was some support from the rank and file, but hardly any support from the people who actually have the power to change things. In spite of this, I have consistently been supportive of the idea of a sideboard in some shape or form, and have even been willing to do a ROOT month with the best of 3 format. We did a couple months of ROOT this fall without any rule modifications, and we did one with the T3 format (which has been around longer than people have been talking about sideboarding), and the plan has always been to do sideboarding and 2/3 in either Jan or Feb.
So are you happy with me supporting your baby despite not much interest being shown in it ever becoming a reality? Of course not, you just complain that I'm not moving fast enough. 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? 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.
Basically you just need to fix your attitude of negativity, and be thankful for what you're getting.
-
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?
-
Why would anyone be ok with the Atari 2600 you gave them when an Xbox 360 serves the community so much better?
Just remember that if there wasn't an Atari 2600 there would probably never be an Xbox 360. And people were really happy with the Atari 2600 back when it came out.
As for implementing the sideboard in ROOT, I've already stated that we'll be doing 2 out of 3 games when we do this. But just keep in mind that it probably won't be happening at any live tournaments for a long time. I'm also fine with doing a more traditional sideboard option for that month of ROOT. But if people would prefer to test out something that has a better chance of becoming a reality, then it might be better to test out ingame sideboarding like we've been discussing later in this thread.
I could go either way, so I don't have any "hidden agenda". I'm glad that we're talking about both options, and I'm interested to see which one people end up choosing to use.
-
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.
-
Just remember that if there wasn't an Atari 2600 there would probably never be an Xbox 360. And people were really happy with the Atari 2600 back when it came out.
My point was why try to give someone something sub-par when you have better options readily available. I'm pretty sure if the Xbox 360 was released in 1977 as well, there wouldn't be a shadow of a doubt which system people would pick. Which do the majority of people pick now? That is the only thing that is relevant.
But just keep in mind that it probably won't be happening at any live tournaments for a long time.
Again, this is besides the entire point of the thread, but I'll play. IIRC, Rob recently made a post in favor of implementing top cut in tournaments with over 31 players, an idea that you claim has little support. What possibly gives you the idea that best 2 of 3 with siding, a practice that further perpetuates the balance and fairness of top cut in the first place, won't be possible for a 'long time'? You are apparently the authority on what has support and what doesn't, what becomes a reality and what doesn't, and the time frame associated with such realities, so this is, of course, why I ask you.
...then it might be better to test out ingame sideboarding like we've been discussing later in this thread
Since you're such a strong proponent of democracy when it comes to ROOT, I suggest you let the people vote and decide which rules they would like to test out. And let's just simply avoid the embarrassment of putting frivolous long-standing rules on the ballot that, again, only serve one persons agenda.
-
I'll help you out with testing tonight if you want. just PM me when your ready and I'll help.
-
I am a big fan of top cut in big tournaments. But there are only a few tournaments per year that are big enough. Nats plus a couple regionals and probably one state tournament. And just because we have a top cut doesn't mean that we will have enough time for a best 2 out of 3.
For the vast majority of tournaments, and in the likely event that we never begin a 2 of 3 playoff even at the top tournaments, I think it would be best to come up with the best possible in-game access to your sideboard. A lot of options have been suggested. We need to decide what we want to test:
Access time:
1) once per prep phase
2) when you draw a lost soul
3) when your opponent rescues a lost soul
What to do at access time:
1) exchange a card in hand with card in sideboard
2) remove a hand card from game, take a sideboard card into hand.
3) put a card from hand into sideboard, shuffle a sideboard card into deck, draw 1
4) remove a hand card from the game, shuffle a sideboard card into deck, draw 1
Sideboard size:
1) = lost soul count. Most seem OK with this simple option.
Sideboard contents:
1) no restrictions
2) no dominants
3) no dominants or single-color sites (possibly needed if the sideboarded card goes straight to your hand after a soul draw).
Deck contents
1) no dominants. These must go in sideboard (or perhaps a seperate dominant pile) and only shuffled into deck as you draw lost souls. As much as I like this option, I don't see it happening without tremendous player support.
-
And just because we have a top cut doesn't mean that we will have enough time for a best 2 out of 3.
I disagree. After the first few rounds, the top couple of tables were finished with their games in 5-10 minutes with very, very few exceptions. Best 2:3 would not use the same time limits as the normal tournament, and since it's only the best players at the biggest tournaments, no time would need to be factored in for reading cards or any of that tom-foolery that causes games to last longer than 15 minutes at most.
-
Best 2:3 would not use the same time limits as the normal tournament, and since it's only the best players at the biggest tournaments, no time would need to be factored in for reading cards or any of that tom-foolery that causes games to last longer than 15 minutes at most.
Like using defense? I've seen games at top tables go all the way to time. Ever seen a 150-card deck at a top table at nationals? I have.
-
FTR, my opposition to Top Cut does not filter over to sideboards. I am willing to test these at my tournaments once the details mentioned above by Bryon are decided. I think players will enjoy the flexibility, especially when most of my players are torn between a few cards that they wanted to include in their deck anyway.
-
Like using defense? I've seen games at top tables go all the way to time. Ever seen a 150-card deck at a top table at nationals? I have.
Since I assume we're talking T1, these are isolated incidents that are nowhere near the norm. These are also troll decks that would time out under almost any condition. I also do not see why these matches going to time would even be a problem in the first place, even under best 2 of 3.
-
Even at a nationals the people using the 150 card decks and get to the top table will be good players who know what they are doing and would not need extra "time for reading cards or any of that tom-foolery" to cause a time out. I used to run a 77 card deck all the time at our tournies and I never clocked out I was still usually one of the first people done with their game.
-
Best 2:3 would not use the same time limits as the normal tournament, and since it's only the best players at the biggest tournaments, no time would need to be factored in for reading cards or any of that tom-foolery that causes games to last longer than 15 minutes at most.
Like using defense? I've seen games at top tables go all the way to time. Ever seen a 150-card deck at a top table at nationals? I have.
Right. When was the last time that happened? The biggest deck at top tables this year was Greeson's, and he was moving right along.
-
Like using defense? I've seen games at top tables go all the way to time. Ever seen a 150-card deck at a top table at nationals? I have.
Right. When was the last time that happened? The biggest deck at top tables this year was Greeson's, and he was moving right along.
I think my deck at Nats was 63 cards of mainly defense, and I did have issues with time limits. My last game was against Jon Pequinot who had a 154 card deck that was up near the top for a lot of the day despite him having timeout problems consistently.
-
Since I assume we're talking T1, these are isolated incidents that are nowhere near the norm. These are also troll decks that would time out under almost any condition. I also do not see why these matches going to time would even be a problem in the first place, even under best 2 of 3.
My playgroup has jokingly discussed best 2/3 T2 before, we were fairly sure that it would take an entire weekend and would probably be a test of mental endurance (at least for me and my complex deck strategies).
I'd be really interested to see how a sideboard (however it ends up working) affects T2.
-
In-game siding would be a nightmare for T2. So much shuffling.
-
A) Access time:
1) once per prep phase [I think this is too often, and would lengthen games too much]
2) when you draw a lost soul [This is the best frequency, and also mitigates LS bleed]
3) when your opponent rescues a lost soul [This would probably only happen 3X per game]
B) What to do at access time:
1) exchange a card in hand with card in sideboard [This is OP. It allows any 1 card to show up too fast]
2) remove a hand card from game, take a sideboard card into hand. [This hurts people who draw their LS on the first turn and don't know for sure what they won't need.]
3) put a card from hand into sideboard, shuffle a sideboard card into deck, draw 1 [This is perfect]
4) remove a hand card from the game, shuffle a sideboard card into deck, draw 1 [This is worse than #2]
C) Sideboard size:
1) = lost soul count. Most seem OK with this simple option. [This is also really great]
D) Sideboard contents:
1) no restrictions [Freedom is usually a good thing]
2) no dominants [This is only important if sideboard cards went straight to hand, which they shouldn't]
3) no dominants or single-color sites (possibly needed if the sideboarded card goes straight to your hand after a soul draw). [Same as #2]
4) all dominants. These must go in sideboard (or perhaps a separate dominant pile) and only shuffled into deck as you draw lost souls. As much as I like this option, I don't see it happening without tremendous player support. [This is my favorite option]
OK, so my votes are:
A2
B3
C1
D4 (with D1 as 2nd pick)
-
A2
B3
C1
D1
I dont like D4 because it is very limiting to most decks. and not everyone has seven doms. I onl have six, so My sideboard would be less than other competetors.
-
Maybe we could try a traditional sideboarding method first then after testing move to a more complex method if needed?
with best 2 out of 3, of course. :)
-
I think my deck at Nats was 63 cards of mainly defense, and I did have issues with time limits. My last game was against Jon Pequinot who had a 154 card deck that was up near the top for a lot of the day despite him having timeout problems consistently.
I didn't realize your deck was that large, though I knew it was mostly defense. You're one of the better defensive players I know, and if you cannot pilot a 63 card deck (let alone anything bigger) to the top ten, who exactly is going to? It's easy to dismiss an idea like this because of time issues with people who likes to play defense, but the odds are stacked against defense to begin with, so I'm not particularly inclined to accommodate such a small percentage of players, when I would assume that more people would be in favor of best 2 out of 3 top cut than those opposed because of time issues. Again, those of us who are pushing for best 2 out of 3 are only doing it with top cut in mind, which would only be the final four rounds, and with a small percentage of the total player base. Time issues aren't really going to be a huge problem, since the majority of players at that level will be playing small decks.
I'm strongly opposed to any in-game sideboard, including the dominant ones (no pun intended). The whole point of sideboard is for best 2 out of 3, so that the game is more competitive. Otherwise, I think we're just changing things for the sake of changing them.
-
A2
B3
C1
D1
There are three major problems I see with D4, forcing all Dominants from the deck to the sideboard.
First, it adds another level of complexity to teaching new players the game.
Second it makes sideboards required in order to have any chance to compete. I strongly believe that sideboards should be optional.
Third it defeats the purpose of introducing sideboards to the game in the first place, that is to add strategy and provide a way to use counters without taking up valuable deck space.
If we're looking for a way to nueter Dominants worse that we already have, then just play the optional 2 Good Dom/2 Evil Dom format Rob created. Don't ruin sideboards because of your hate for Dominants.
-
In-game siding would be a nightmare for T2. So much shuffling.
Agreed.
As for voting, I agree with Gabe's votes (which agree with Mark's for the most part). I think the dominant part is another issue entirely and really should be in its own thread.
Any chance this could be tested in Jan ROOT? Too soon?
-
I'm strongly opposed to any in-game sideboard, including the dominant ones (no pun intended). The whole point of sideboard is for best 2 out of 3, so that the game is more competitive. Otherwise, I think we're just changing things for the sake of changing them.
Agreed, 'in-game' siding is just an extra in-game location branding itself as a severely watered down version of what traditional siding actually accomplishes. All in-game siding achieves is introducing an extra pile from which to circulate cards through, which in turn just means you made your deck bigger without adhering to lost soul ratio rules. Some variants of this new game mechanic don't even parallel the strategic elements of actual siding in the slightest. Gaining access to this extra pile only at very specific times is completely counter intuitive to what siding is actually aimed at doing. The only way to achieve anything even remotely similar to the benefits of actual siding is the scenario where the cards shuffled in will have even a mere possibility at making an impact upon the game. Gaining access only as certain events are being fulfilled just doesn't cut it, both soul drought and drawing first turn souls soundly defeats the purpose. Gaining access once per prep phase gives a player a solid chance at seeing a single extra pile card in a single game, and I have yet to see a single argument disputing the veracity of it outside of the ambiguity of 'too often' (yes, clearly adding anything that creates a more strategic and balanced gamestate 'too often' is a bad thing). Cards put in the extra pile during a game also shouldn't be allowed to be circulated back into the deck again.
-
I dont think it really matters on what is circulated in or out. and the size for the most part if it is limited to getting the cards out with lost souls. you could have 15 cards, but you can still only get out seven cards from it. unless you shuffle your souls and do it all again. so I could go for a 15 card sideboard.
-
We need to have it tested both ways. I fully agree with Master KChief whats the reason not to use A1? For many Redemption players siding is a foreign concept and if we are going to use in-game siding it has to be done frequently other wise it just becomes a gimmick. When I posted about Middle Earth CCG and its concept of in-game siding vet. players would be swapping cards in and out from their side board almost every turn allowing your deck to be EXTREMELY flexible.
I would be more open to the...
A2
B3
C1
D2
If cards were made that allowed you to forgo the normal "waiting period" to use your sideboard. This is what Middle Earth CCG did and it worked fantastically.
-
I've mostly stayed out of the discussion because I can see the different sides, and I like various parts of what has been suggested.
At this point (because on some of the below issues I can still be swayed in my opinion):
I like and prefer the sideboard to be best utilized as part of a best 2 of 3 games (though most people know I have an aggressive play style).
However, with in-game siding (which is the current discussion). Here are my current leanings (multiple answers are presented in the order of my current preference):
A2: This will help prevent the hiding of Lost Souls since Lost Souls triggers the use of the sideboard.
It also gives some benefit to those who have "bled out" lost souls.
B2: This makes the sideboard most useful verses speed or FBTN by getting counter cards quickly. Also, there is a cost to be paid for not braving the card in the original deck.
B3: Would be my next preference but I am not sure how useful an in-game sideboard would be when you are burying your counter into your deck hoping to redraw it at some point. If that is what you want to do, then why not just start with the card in your deck for a better chance to get it because of the initial 8 cards.
C2 (not sure why people are even mentioning a "C" because 1 option is not really a vote) but I like the idea of a 10 card sideboard. 10 cards allow for an actual flip in offense or defense or both. I may be the only one to be willing to mess up deck building simplicity (which I understand its importance) but I wanted to keep this option on the table.
D1 I like the freedom of moving whatever cards around because I think this maximizes the strategy aspect.
D2a-->Limited Doms in SideBoard Because I am a fan of cards going to hand, then this could limit potential abuse. However, I also prefer the option of swapping a Guardian out of deck (if they have used their FA before it was drawn) for a FA. Or swap out a burial into sideboard if Lampstand is active.
D2b-->No Doms whatsoever Just to limit free searches for Doms or free protection of Doms from Confusion, etc.
D3 I like this because of the ability to limit GoS abuse.
It's late and I'm tired, so hopefully my initial thoughts are coherent and thought provoking.
-
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.
-
Any chance this could be tested in Jan ROOT? Too soon?
My current thinking is to use Jan/Feb ROOT to try out the best 2 or 3 format with an extra 7 card sideboard that is available to switch between games (by putting a different 7 cards face down at the start of each game.
Then, by late Feb, we should have this in-game sideboard thing worked out, and we can try that out for the second ROOT of 2013 (Feb/Mar).
-
Sounds good Mark. What about timed games and scoring?
-
1. I agree, that for ROOT the number of games would have to be most VPs out of 3 games.
So a player would win if they:
won 2 games completely = 6VPs
won 1 game and had 2 ties = 6VPs
won 1 game with a tie and a timeout loss = 5.5VPs
won 1 game and had 2 timeout losses = 5VPs
won 1 game with a timeout win = 5 VPs
2. For number of cards in the sideboard, just use the number of LSs in a deck.
3. Allow NO time between games to change things, but have the sideboard actually be part of the deck on RTS.
4. Use the "other Prof's" suggestion for accountability, which is basically to start with a deck of X+Y (where X is your preferred deck size, and Y is the sideboard size). Then when the game starts to search your deck for the Y cards that you don't want, take them into your hand, and set them aside face-down. Then you can shuffle all your remaining cards back into your deck and d8 to start the game.
These are still my current leanings for Jan/Feb ROOT.
-
Prof I would ask that we bump this first root trial up to 10 cards rather than 7 I know it may take extra time to set them aside but it would allow for greater shifts in the deck than 7 does.
Just my though
-
Jerome and I played several games last week using a side board
We decided to try siding all Dom's and and only having access when we bled Lost souls
We would set aside a card and shuffle a Dom into the deck.
We both felt this created an interesting twist and greatly bolstered the need for defense within our decks.
I was not a huge fan of siding only when LS's where drawn. Multiple times, especially at the game start, we would draw souls and switch cards to shuffle in a Dom and then upon drawing a replacement card we drew more lost souls leading to a repeat of the entire process before the game had its first turn. It was also frustrating to side cards early on in the game bc we weren't sure what we would want in our hands later on based of the draw.
The idea of siding dom's is an instant boost to defense and acts as an instant counter to speed without a counter card needing to be drawn.
All in all we felt the way we approached the siding was a fun interesting way to play the game but accessing side boards by drawing lost souls seemed lame.
-
All in all we felt the way we approached the siding was a fun interesting way to play the game but accessing side boards by drawing lost souls seemed lame.
Accessing the side board only when LSs are drawn is doomed to failure. There are already many ways to get LSs out of your opponent's deck without having to draw them. And then, are the playtesters coming up with any new ways to get LSs out? In light of the relatively new rule about not rescuing your own lost souls, I would think this kind of in-game sideboard rule would only increase the desire to include LS-gen strategies.
I was not a huge fan of siding only when LS's where drawn. Multiple times, especially at the game start, we would draw souls and switch cards to shuffle in a Dom and then upon drawing a replacement card we drew more lost souls leading to a repeat of the entire process before the game had its first turn. It was also frustrating to side cards early on in the game bc we weren't sure what we would want in our hands later on based of the draw.
The initial draw should, in theory, generate at least one lost soul the vast majority of the time. Thus, the problem outlined here will always come up, which (as stated) defeats the purpose of in-game siding. You won't necessarily know what you need from your sideboard on the first turn.
-
I appreciate this real game feedback, and it makes me want to reconsider allowing one sideboard switch every prep phase. But the problem with that is that it mean shuffling your deck every turn, which would really make the game longer. Is there another solution?
-
I appreciate this real game feedback, and it makes me want to reconsider allowing one sideboard switch every prep phase. But the problem with that is that it mean shuffling your deck every turn, which would really make the game longer. Is there another solution?
Yeah, but unfortunately the PTB think it's untenable in the top cut even due to length issues.
-
What if you allowed one switch per turn after the first 3 rounds. This would give players an opportunity to have territories set up and to observe their need for cards based on their territory and their opponents. This would also benefit the player who went second as they would get 1 extra draw phase.
The only issue I see is that their have been claims to decking out in 3rds of play which would allow people in effect to choose any card from the side board and add it to hand.
-
A.) you MAY switch every prep phase could work. It makes it where you dont have to do it, but you have the option to.
B.) set a hero aside and for every X turns it is set aside, you can sideboard one card.
C.) decrease one of your own characters by X/X to sideboard a card.
D.) when you play a site, you may get a card out of your sideboard
E.) (If there are no Doms in the sideboard) everytime you play a dom you may switch a card in the sideboard
a few things I just thought of.
-
What if you allowed one switch per turn after the first 3 rounds. This would give players an opportunity to have territories set up and to observe their need for cards based on their territory and their opponents. This would also benefit the player who went second as they would get 1 extra draw phase.
The only issue I see is that their have been claims to decking out in 3rds of play which would allow people in effect to choose any card from the side board and add it to hand.
Most games I see played on a Nats level will end within 7-10 turns barring crazy soul draws, so I don't think that'd be worth changing anything for. There's no reason to arbitrarily increase the deck size limit through in game boarding.
-
In regards to people shuffling their deck if the Sideboard cap is at 7 cards you wont be shuffling your deck more then 7 extra times and I dont know about you but it doesnt take me more then 20 seconds to shuffle my deck ::)
-
well, there isnt really a limit to taking the stuff out of the sideboard. or are did they say you cant get stuff back out of your sideboard or something?
-
well, there isnt really a limit to taking the stuff out of the sideboard. or are did they say you cant get stuff back out of your sideboard or something?
This hasn't been decided yet. If cards were removed from the game to get cards out of sideboards, then yes the number of shuffles would be limited to the number of cards in the sideboard. However, if the cards were simply switched to the sideboard, then the number of shuffles would be a lot more.
-
I dont think they should be removed from the game. Then you lose the card for the rest of the game. if you just put i in the sideboard, if it is like a character or something, you could get it back if you need to.like if you think the deck is one thing, but its a different thing, you can get the card back.
-
This hasn't been decided yet. If cards were removed from the game to get cards out of sideboards, then yes the number of shuffles would be limited to the number of cards in the sideboard. However, if the cards were simply switched to the sideboard, then the number of shuffles would be a lot more.
Why would you be switching for a card that you already swapped out your deck? If you took it out of your deck in the first place its obviously non essential to you winning so why would you want it back in?
-
you could have missunderstood something. OR you could have ran out of things to use and you put in one enhancement that you didnt need then. but you might need it at the end of the game.
-
I think all cards removed to get a card out of sideboard should be gone for good. There needs to be a penalty, otherwise it's just a bigger deck with no deck-building guidelines. What are the guidelines going to be? Was that mentioned earlier in this thread (I admit that I have only read the last page or so)?
-
I think all cards removed to get a card out of sideboard should be gone for good. There needs to be a penalty, otherwise it's just a bigger deck with no deck-building guidelines.
I'm glad someone else gets it. That's pretty much the point of siding...sacrificing a part of your deck in exchange for cards that have a better matchup. I can understand there should be a slight amount of leeway involved, since you have to remove something in your current hand rather than having the freedom of removing all of the unnecessary cards in your deck like with traditional siding, but in no way should you be allowed to create an in-game cycle of cards through the sidedeck.
-
I think all cards removed to get a card out of sideboard should be gone for good. There needs to be a penalty, otherwise it's just a bigger deck with no deck-building guidelines.
I'm glad someone else gets it. That's pretty much the point of siding...sacrificing a part of your deck in exchange for cards that have a better matchup. I can understand there should be a slight amount of leeway involved, since you have to remove something in your current hand rather than having the freedom of removing all of the unnecessary cards in your deck like with traditional siding, but in no way should you be allowed to create an in-game cycle of cards through the sidedeck.
I agree with this completely, which is why I think in game siding is incredibly unnecessarily complicated for no reason.
-
I agree with this completely, which is why I think in game siding is incredibly unnecessarily complicated for no reason.
I agree with the comments above, especially Alex's. We should focus on making sideboards viable before discussing in-game sideboards. In my opinion, I don't think that in-game sideboards will ever be compatible with Redemption, and we should focus our energy 100% on traditional sideboarding instead. Sideboards already allow you to tech against weaknesses of your deck; I think you should have to wait until the game is over to "retech" your deck.
-
I agree with this completely, which is why I think in game siding is incredibly unnecessarily complicated for no reason.
-
I think every one here should play a game with proper (as in every prep phase) "in-game" siding before throwing it under the bus. It seems like it adds unnecessary complication but as of right now its the best compromise considering the time limits for tourneys. Trust me in-game siding works you just need to try it!
Note: I would still prefer best 2 of 3 siding but in-game is a compromise that works.
-
I think every one here should play a game with proper (as in every prep phase) "in-game" siding before throwing it under the bus. It seems like it adds unnecessary complication but as of right now its the best compromise considering the time limits for tourneys. Trust me in-game siding works you just need to try it!
Note: I would still prefer best 2 of 3 siding but in-game is a compromise that works.
It's not a compromise. It's a completely different thing.
-
I agree with this completely, which is why I think in game siding is incredibly unnecessarily complicated for no reason.
I agree with the comments above, especially Alex's. We should focus on making sideboards viable before discussing in-game sideboards. In my opinion, I don't think that in-game sideboards will ever be compatible with Redemption, and we should focus our energy 100% on traditional sideboarding instead. Sideboards already allow you to tech against weaknesses of your deck; I think you should have to wait until the game is over to "retech" your deck.
The retech only helps against a specific opponent. But you only play each opponent once in face-to-face Redemption tournaments.
Be aware that best of three is only happening in ROOT, so if you want to perfect it for ROOT, that is great.
Best of three just doesn't work for in-person tournaments.
-
This may be a extreme but how about for in-person tournements we make it where it is still single game and to side you must give your opponent a automatic redeemed soul or you must fall away one of your redeemed souls. The rest of the siding stuff I agree with.
-
I agree with this completely, which is why I think in game siding is incredibly unnecessarily complicated for no reason.
I agree with the comments above, especially Alex's. We should focus on making sideboards viable before discussing in-game sideboards. In my opinion, I don't think that in-game sideboards will ever be compatible with Redemption, and we should focus our energy 100% on traditional sideboarding instead. Sideboards already allow you to tech against weaknesses of your deck; I think you should have to wait until the game is over to "retech" your deck.
The retech only helps against a specific opponent. But you only play each opponent once in face-to-face Redemption tournaments.
Be aware that best of three is only happening in ROOT, so if you want to perfect it for ROOT, that is great.
Best of three just doesn't work for in-person tournaments.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ::)
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
Absolutely, feel free to share your ideas YMT.
-
It doesn't work. Pokemon's best of 3 doesn't work because the time limit is too short. Redemption's would be too.
-
MKC, these were my suggestions from earlier (what I prefer is bolded):
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
Echoing ChristianSoldier the only purposes of a sideboard is to punish decks that have a good matchup to you for the most part.
-
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?
-
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.)
-
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. :2cents:
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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)?
This is a problem because bigger decks with little cost means less strategy in deck building. Under the current system, you either have to make hard choices deciding what is going to fit in your deck, or otherwise increase your deck size and embrace the risk that that entails (having extra cards between you and the cards you need the most, especially Son of God). In-game sideboarding completely eliminates having to make those tough decisions, and I don't believe actually reducing strategy is good for the game.
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.
Best two out of three has already died. Nobody is arguing against in-game siding because of that.
-
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)?
This is a problem because bigger decks with little cost means less strategy in deck building. Under the current system, you either have to make hard choices deciding what is going to fit in your deck, or otherwise increase your deck size and embrace the risk that that entails (having extra cards between you and the cards you need the most, especially Son of God). In-game sideboarding completely eliminates having to make those tough decisions, and I don't believe actually reducing strategy is good for the game.
I still dont understand the problems you think in-game siding has... How does it "reduce" tough decisions? Your still swapping a card from where ever (still hasnt been decided) to your sideboard so your deck is still the same size much like a standard sideboard....
-
I'm still interested in trying this for the Apr/May ROOT assuming that we can come to some consensus on the specifics of in-game sideboarding by then :)
-
I'm still interested in trying this for the Apr/May ROOT assuming that we can come to some consensus on the specifics of in-game sideboarding by then :)
I've heard you say that month is regular rules. I would strongly prefer regular rules
-
Wow. You guys have given him thumbs down already and he just posted this. If you guys want changes to ROOT, then start supporting changes when they are offered. Next month in-game sideboarding... this summer time limits? :-\
-
This summer...something amazing. BE THERE!!! ;)
-
Wow. You guys have given him thumbs down already and he just posted this. If you guys want changes to ROOT, then start supporting changes when they are offered. Next month in-game sideboarding... this summer time limits? :-\
So I should support bad ideas because I want good idea implemented? Why am I not allowed to express my disagreement with the idea being presented because I support some other idea?
-
So I should support bad ideas because I want good idea implemented? Why am I not allowed to express my disagreement with the idea being presented because I support some other idea?
Giving a minus one to his most recent post does not seem to express disagreement with the idea in general. You should have just stated that. Considering the most recent negativity toward Mark specifically, I took this post (which was from a two-month-old thread) as an olive branch. The immediate minuses seemed to be torching the branch. Red explained his position (if he was one of the minuses). You could have done the same.
-
So I should support bad ideas because I want good idea implemented? Why am I not allowed to express my disagreement with the idea being presented because I support some other idea?
Giving a minus one to his most recent post does not seem to express disagreement with the idea in general. You should have just stated that. Considering the most recent negativity toward Mark specifically, I took this post (which was from a two-month-old thread) as an olive branch. The immediate minuses seemed to be torching the branch. Red explained his position (if he was one of the minuses). You could have done the same.
The entire point of the +/- system is so that I don't have to post "That's a bad idea" and just minus it instead.
-
Wow. You guys have given him thumbs down already and he just posted this. If you guys want changes to ROOT, then start supporting changes when they are offered. Next month in-game sideboarding... this summer time limits? :-\
The moment people started opposing in-game siding in this thread, the attitude of "you whiners should take what you can get" came up, and it's a little ridiculous. Your post is on a different topic but maintains the same theme. Supporting change for the sake of change doesn't do anything. We're supporting a specific kind of change, and if we don't get it, that doesn't mean we should suddenly start supporting change that we don't like.
-
I was more referring to giving Mark a chance, rather than giving in-game sideboarding a chance. I have no problem with people not liking the idea in general.
The entire point of the +/- system is so that I don't have to post "That's a bad idea" and just minus it instead.
I understand the purpose of the system, but context is always important. Disagreeing with an idea that was discussed two months ago needs more than a -1 to a post that simply restarts the discussion, especially since there were several people that supported the idea.
It is also important that this Message Board not become a stomping ground on Mark. He is still our brother in Christ. I realize that may not have been the intent of the minuses, but appearances are just as important as intentions.
-
I've heard you say that month is regular rules. I would strongly prefer regular rules
If we can't come to a consensus on this thread of how to experiment with this idea, then we probably will just run regular rules. It's been a few months since we've done that, so it wouldn't be a bad time for it.
But there were several people on this thread who seemed to like the idea (not everyone of course), and we experimented with the between-game sideboarding already, so it only seemed fair to give this a chance as well. I just wanted to let the people who were supportive of this idea know that I hadn't forgotten them, and that I am still willing to give this a shot next month.
It is also important that this Message Board not become a stomping ground on Mark. He is still our brother in Christ.
Thanks for the support YMT :)
-
I think in-game sideboarding should be given a chance. I agree with the logic laid out by jmhartz that the best option concerning timing for accessing sideboard cards would be after your opponent rescues a LS from you. However, I am not sure if switching 1:1 from hand and sideboard is the option we want to go with. I understand that faster decks would inherently have a higher chance of drawing the new card from deck sooner but if we switch directly to hand I think that might be too strong.
What if a player had the one of 4 options after a soul was rescued from them?
A) Send 1 card in hand to sideboard and 1 card from sideboard to deck. Shuffle deck.
B) Send 2 cards in hand to sideboard and 1 card from sideboard to hand.
C) Send 2 cards from deck to sideboard and 1 card from sideboard to deck. Shuffle deck.
D) Send 3 cards from deck to sideboard and 1 card from sideboard to hand. Shuffle deck.
Maybe my suggestion is poor but I think the above would present some unique deck building strategies - such as putting SoG/NJ in your sideboard to not pull into deck until late in the game. (That is - assuming dominants are legal for a sideboard).
Just trying to throw something out there to spark the creative juices.
Kirk
-
What if a player had the one of 4 options after a soul was rescued from them?
A) Send 1 card in hand to sideboard and 1 card from sideboard to deck. Shuffle deck.
B) Send 2 cards in hand to sideboard and 1 card from sideboard to hand.
C) Send 2 cards from deck to sideboard and 1 card from sideboard to deck. Shuffle deck.
D) Send 3 cards from deck to sideboard and 1 card from sideboard to hand. Shuffle deck.
These ideas are a good place to start. After playing the ROOT tournament with out-of-game sideboarding, and rereading some posts, I agree that sideboarded cards should not go straight to hand. The possibility of this, I think, would lead to cards like Birth Foretold, TGT, Mayhem, Son of God, Gates of Samaria, etc. going into sideboards; cards that either can be overwhelmingly powerful if accessed at just the right time, or cards that are normally high-risk/high reward for which the risk of them can be reduced or eliminated.
Smart players would gladly give up a LS and trade two cards in hand to grab Mayhem or TGT I think, if they deem it advantageous. And I don't even want to think about playing a 154 card deck that can grab Gates of Hell or Gates of Samaria upon surrendering its first LS.
And based on the prior posts about how sideboards are really extensions of your deck, I think that the sideboarded card should be shuffled into deck. Sideboards are extra cards in your deck that normally wouldn't be there; when an opponent rescues a LS from you, you get to make the choice "Is it worth shuffling an extra card in my deck that I might not draw?".
If you do it and you don't draw the card, well, that is basically the same as not sideboarding at all. You made the choice and it didn't pay off. But you can't feel cheated, because that sideboarded card was never in your deck to start.
And I'm not saying that exchanging a card in hand to shuffle a sideboarded card into deck is the only option. I also like Kirk's third option above, where you trade 2 cards in deck for one sideboarded card. If this is done with every sideboard, though, that will take a lot of time, and also could make your deck technically illegal (with too many LS).
My two cents.
-
I like Kirk's 4 options from a strategic standpoint, but do you think it would just be too complicated?
The problem with only getting a sideboard card into your deck each time an opponent rescues a LS is that it would practically never happen for you to actually see on of these cards. Most players end the game by taking LS #3 and playing SoG/NJ. That means that you'd only get to shuffle in a sideboard card twice in a game (after LS #1 and LS #2), and even then it would be mixed in your deck so your odds of drawing it aren't good.