Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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 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.

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 01, 2013, 05:50:08 PM

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.

Quote from: jmhartz on January 01, 2013, 07:45:01 PM

Quote from: Alex_Olijar on January 01, 2013, 05:50:08 PM

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.