Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Sideboard

  1. #1

    Sideboard

    How would you feel about having games be a best two out of three, with an optional sideboard (say two to four cards, leaning towards two). So you could change up the build between games. When you made changes you could still only have a team with eight cards/20 dice.

    I feel that this would add another layer a strategy, to this awesome game. I think it make for some really great game play as well.

  2. #2
    It could also slow things down a bit, I think. I'm not sure how I feel about it, to be honest.

  3. #3
    2015 Canadian and 2016 US National Champion
    350

    Location
    Akron, OH
    Blog Entries
    2
    Dislike. 8 is enough. Making tough choices is half (probably more) of the challenge!

  4. #4
    I agree that at current 8 is more than enough cards, I could see room for creating a 2 card, 5 dice sideboard as the size of the game expands, but only for Unlimited. Standard (or what ever it ends up being called) should always only require 8. And limited will never need one.

  5. #5
    2015 Canadian and 2016 US National Champion
    350

    Location
    Akron, OH
    Blog Entries
    2
    That's a fair point about the future of the game... But looking for card interaction is a huge part of the game. And let me tell you, on one's own, it's an incredible challenge. So much of what makes it fun is bouncing those ideas and combos around with friends. Getting smoked by a buddy who takes an idea and manipulates it making it better..Then returning the favor! I know building as local scene is a challenge. But that's what's going on in the forums and ladders if you're doing it right.

    Remember, your choices now are limited and will likely double in a year or less...

  6. #6
    Considering any one card is 1/8 - 1/5 (2-4 card sideboard, and the second is if counting basic actions) of your deck, being able to change 1/4 - 2/5 (2 cards) or 1/2 - 4/5 (4 cards) is insane.

    Basically, you and your opponent are almost guaranteed to each have 2 cards that will negate each other's deck somehow. Maybe not 100% of the time, but that' way too much. Maybe a basic action card or so... maybe...

    no way, it would be too much in this game, and just end up canceling out each other

  7. #7
    Does anyone really use all 8 cards to achieve the basic strategy of their deck? Seems like if you needed access to 8 unique dice to get your engine running, you've already lost.

    Seems like 8 cards is more than enough room to accommodate situational/anti-meta tech.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Jthomash2 View Post
    That's a fair point about the future of the game... But looking for card interaction is a huge part of the game. And let me tell you, on one's own, it's an incredible challenge. So much of what makes it fun is bouncing those ideas and combos around with friends. Getting smoked by a buddy who takes an idea and manipulates it making it better..Then returning the favor! I know building as local scene is a challenge. But that's what's going on in the forums and ladders if you're doing it right.

    Remember, your choices now are limited and will likely double in a year or less...

    I agree 100%.

    Unlike other games, I feel like we're in a position where your win condition can be 2-3 cards, with another 2 dedicated to ramp in most cases. That leaves with half, or almost half of your team to dedicate to problem solvers and outlets for countering certain threats. This gives you a great opportunity to plan ahead and really think about how you want to play, and how you want to build. In a game like dicemasters, a sideboard would do nothing but make plenty of fun teams that do different things (like flying sidekicks, villains, magic machine gun) completely irrelevant because it's very easy to side into hate cards. If you look at a game like Yugioh as an example, this "side into something that auto wins" option does nothing but lead to stagnation.

    In short, consider what is available to you and build accordingly. Justice league gave us even more great options, and there are a surprising number of hidden gems in the D&D set, so look in there if you want to find something new to change your game up and force other players into difficult decisions against you.

  9. #9
    After playing in my first MTG draft and seeing how a sideboard works, no thanks. We don't have that kind of time in DM where a match may be determined by a "roll of sidekicks" if game takes too long already.

  10. #10
    I don't understand these time-based arguments.

    How does having a sideboard significantly add to the time taken to play a match or matches?

  11. #11
    Would you allow someone to make a switch in the middle of a best-of-three? That's the assumption I've been making.

  12. #12
    Yes.

    How would that significantly impact the time taken to play a match (of three games)?

  13. #13
    2015 Canadian and 2016 US National Champion
    350

    Location
    Akron, OH
    Blog Entries
    2
    I don't care about the time...I mean, it's not my reason for disliking the sideboard idea.

    My concern is that in deck building, you are forced to make choices. A sideboard shifts those choices to be less critical, or at least less impactful to the immediate game. As a non mtg player, I suppose I have a bias against a change like this since I have no history with it in competitive play. But in testing, I feel like I'm doing this all the time to fine tune my team. When the competitive play comes, I should be done and ready to live with my choices. That one team can't just beat everything everytime is indicative of a healthy meta. It also helps to avoid paying for wins (by buying that deck and paying whatever the ridiculous price would be).

    Don't get me wrong, a ten character team would be fun to tinker with, even knowing I can only use 8 at a time. But rather than riding the pine, I think the game benefits more from leaving those characters at home altogether.

  14. #14
    Changing even two cards out can turn one deck into something completely different. It's different from adding up to 15 cards in MTG because there's still the draw factor (and because you aren't often adding all 15 from the sideboard in).

  15. #15
    Playing devils advocate (I'm on the fence):

    It's just a different set of constraints to work within.

    There is nothing magical about the 8+2 format we currently have.

    And if the argument is 'tighter constraints = better game', why not make it 4+1?

  16. #16
    My teams I usually play 4 actual characters and 4 support. In other words 4 cards are the kill strategy, actually fielded and 4 support aka globals. So I see the reason for 8 cards. I to am on the fence about sidebars, but i get why people do not want them. However I think 1 card that you can switch might be fun. Thematically it is the surprise person that shows up when a team of super heros or D&D characters are about to loose and someone shows up in the nick of time to switch the balance of power. but hey I am just saying on a fun way. Like I said not for or against.

  17. #17
    2015 Canadian and 2016 US National Champion
    350

    Location
    Akron, OH
    Blog Entries
    2
    I think it comes down to the law of diminishing returns. Continuing the tight control argument, just pick one character and forget about the rest. I'm not saying the sideboard idea is bad, I just prefer not to use it during competitive play.

  18. #18
    Actually, this discussion brought me to a sideboard idea. What if you could sideboard 2 cards only. No dice. Thus the card you swapped in had to be a different version of the same character you already are using. The current example I can think of would be bringing Jade Giant to swap for Green Goliath and common Constantine over SR Constantine. This would give you a small about of flexibility to adapt to an opponent, but one you would have to build into the deck. Do you take Superman over Lord of D for your D Ring combo because Superman has better card flexibility in your sideboard spot? Do you then swap ring of magnetism out for ring of Monster attraction so that you can shift from a control deck to an aggression deck that sends Spes in and force two blockers?

    Just enough room to be flexible, without being hard to predict.

  19. #19
    ^^^ I really like that!

    And I would allow one of the two, maybe even both, to be a BAC.

  20. #20
    Yeah, that is pretty solid. Not a bad idea at all.

  21. #21
    I could agree with replacing a basic action, but it would require you to declare your basic actions ahead of time, like all sideboard cards.

    The more I think on this the more I want Wiz Kids to tighten up their rules mechanics so that turns get shorter. Once we get the general player experience level up, and can get the rules question frequency down, the games will start fitting in 20 minute time slots, and we can play best of 3s or the elsewhere mentioned 2 games. Once we get to that, then we can add sideboards. For now, help other players learn by mercilessly beating them down, explain how your deck works and offer to trade cards to them to help get their deck to snuff.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmeld View Post
    Actually, this discussion brought me to a sideboard idea. What if you could sideboard 2 cards only. No dice. Thus the card you swapped in had to be a different version of the same character you already are using. The current example I can think of would be bringing Jade Giant to swap for Green Goliath and common Constantine over SR Constantine. This would give you a small about of flexibility to adapt to an opponent, but one you would have to build into the deck. Do you take Superman over Lord of D for your D Ring combo because Superman has better card flexibility in your sideboard spot? Do you then swap ring of magnetism out for ring of Monster attraction so that you can shift from a control deck to an aggression deck that sends Spes in and force two blockers?

    Just enough room to be flexible, without being hard to predict.
    That is a pretty sweet idea.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowmeld View Post
    I could agree with replacing a basic action, but it would require you to declare your basic actions ahead of time, like all sideboard cards.

    The more I think on this the more I want Wiz Kids to tighten up their rules mechanics so that turns get shorter. Once we get the general player experience level up, and can get the rules question frequency down, the games will start fitting in 20 minute time slots, and we can play best of 3s or the elsewhere mentioned 2 games. Once we get to that, then we can add sideboards. For now, help other players learn by mercilessly beating them down, explain how your deck works and offer to trade cards to them to help get their deck to snuff.
    Yeah, that's true. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Any format which allows a round to be determined by a roll of sidekicks is not a format I can get behind.

    I don't think you want to beat them TOO badly, unless they can take it. Not everybody is as comfortable as being destroyed like I am!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •