Hi guys...

well i thought i would give once again a stupid idea to all of ya...

In my opinion, we should have a "sideboard" during Tournaments.

I mean like a specific amount of points which we could bring in to replace one of our ships.

Lets say....

My list got 99pts with 4 ships.

And i think it would be cool, kinda like in escalation, to have an extra pool where i could just exchange a pilot or setup.

This pool would be for example 50pts.

So my whole list would be 150pts but can only field 100.

I feel like that would make the game more flexible to confront certain situations.

But maybe it could make it worse...

A - "Hey you play Phantom.. okay let me bring my Y wing with Ion Turret."

B - "Sure, do that... oh btw i play now Rexler!"

A - "Oh okey, then i can go ahead and play my Z swarm!!!"

B - "Well, if you do that i will bring my Phantom instead!"

Well, you get the idea...

Or maybe a certain amount of points just for Upgrade cards.

Here i would be okey with 10pts for example.

So i can adjust my upgrades but not my pilots!

Actually i like this idea even more!

What do you think?

That a "two list" system would work much better than sideboards since it is a miniature game capped by points with different costs on ships and upgrades, instead of by cards, which you just change on a 1on1 fashion.

I think side boards are better for card games as they have allot more items with restricted abilities (i.e. protection from black). If you are playing MTG and see a red deck you wouldn't need that card.

However X-wing doesn't have any cards that are that "specialized" (at least not yet we'll see about that anti-turret upgrade). So there is really no need to have a side board to swap upgrades out.

Now I can see moving upgrades within your selected squadron as a possibility as it keeps the point value the same and doesn't really provide too much counter-list tailoring. Things such as switching EPTs on 2 pilots that have two different EPTs or moving a missile weapon from one pilot on your list to a different pilot on the same list that has the missile upgrade slot currently being unused. An option for that shouldn't be too much of an advantage and it also keeps the point value the same. One restricting rule to this should be that you cannot remove upgrade cards to try and steal initiative. You have to have all the cards (pilot and upgrade) in your list that you start with. If you can't place all your upgrades when moving them around (such as R2-D6) then you cannot alter your squadron list.

I think everyone should have at least 2 different faction lists available. I never find Rebel vs Rebel or Imp vs Imp match ups that great to watch. Purely from a thematic stand point battles look much better when anyone can clearly see there is a battle between 2 different sides. Practical considerations aside there would have to be a way of deciding who gets first pick of factions before they see what they are up against, ie: "My Scum will take on your Rebel list".

I think everyone should have at least 2 different faction lists available. I never find Rebel vs Rebel or Imp vs Imp match ups that great to watch. Purely from a thematic stand point battles look much better when anyone can clearly see there is a battle between 2 different sides. Practical considerations aside there would have to be a way of deciding who gets first pick of factions before they see what they are up against, ie: "My Scum will take on your Rebel list".

I agree that I find the "mirror matches" such as rebel vs rebel or the imperial vs imperial immersion breaking. Sort of the reason why I think the S&V faction was a necessity. It breaks up the mirror match.

Now a list per faction could work as with those asymmetrical CCGs like net runner. As long as it is always Imperial vs Rebel. However with the 3rd faction coming up that becomes less practical. There will be always players that bend to one faction so they won't have as powerful build or as much experience in their secondary faction squadron. So what happens when 2 players that have a preference to play Rebel meet? If they play two games that might be alright but if it is only 1 game then you just boiled down the outcome to a dice roll at the start of the game. Even if there are 2 then odds are both players will win with their preferred faction when going against an opponent using their secondary faction. So what will you use for a tie breaker? The only fair tie breaker would be a mirror match.

I agree that I find the "mirror matches" such as rebel vs rebel or the imperial vs imperial immersion breaking. Sort of the reason why I think the S&V faction was a necessity. It breaks up the mirror match.

Good point fella, but based on the buzz around these boards over the S&V faction, we might just end up seeing some S&V mirror matches. Wouldn't that be cute!?

Complicating a simple game strategy premise is rarely beneficial. Leave the sideboards for those card-based games that can support them.

I agree that I find the "mirror matches" such as rebel vs rebel or the imperial vs imperial immersion breaking. Sort of the reason why I think the S&V faction was a necessity. It breaks up the mirror match.

Good point fella, but based on the buzz around these boards over the S&V faction, we might just end up seeing some S&V mirror matches. Wouldn't that be cute!?

Imp vs imp is fine because different moffs came into conflict with each other, the emperor wanted them fighting each other rather than plotting against him.

Reb vs reb is a problem though.

I don't mind the game not being that immersive all the time. I can either take it as "practice/training" if i needed, but i really don't. Actually, having mirror match up, increase the number of match ups, making the game and list building definitly more interesting, so i don't see that as a problem, and forcing players to play one faction or the another for tournaments would be restrictive and counter producent to the gameplay.

And two high agi mobility imperial lists playing against each others is for me the most fun match up by far.

No, sideboards would make no sense in x-wing. Sideboards only come in to play in cards games after the first game of a best of three or however many). In x-wing we play a best of one.

Worth note is there is a functional sideboard upgrade in Star Trek: Attack Wing. However it is a near horrible design. It does use an in game equip mechanic which I like. But creates really broken situations as if done properly you basically add ten points to your squadron. It was also only available as a previous event, which was a one weekend deal, prize but is legal for standard play. Previous event prize only and broken? Well WizKids, that's why I haven't picked up the game. Among a multitude of other reasons.

To have sideboarding in a tournament, I could see a kind of mini-Escalation best-of-two format like this:

Players must register a number of ships and upgrades totaling no more than 120 points. The squad must have a "core" of no less than 40 and no more than 60 points (from that 120 point total) that cannot be changed throughout the tournament.

Players are paired randomly, then play a 45 minute game with their cores only. The winner receives 2 tournament points for a modified win, 3 for a full win, 1 for a draw.

The players then have 15 minutes to use their sideboard to fill out their core to a squad of up to 100 points.* Then they play a 75 minute game. The winner receives 3 tournament points for a modified win, 5 points for a full win, 1 for a draw, as usual.

*(Regarding squad-building errors: When squads are revealed for the second game in a match, illegally-equipped upgrades must be discarded and may not be replaced. If your squad point total exceeds 100, your opponent may discard an upgrade until your squad is legal; if there are no upgrades to discard, your opponent may discard a ship until your squad is legal. If your revealed squad has a value of greater than 101, or if it would require more than 1 discard in order to make your squad legal, you forfeit the game and your opponent receives a full win.)

After the first round (of two games), you could (and probably should, if you have a lot of players) begin eliminating players and proceed to top 8 or top 4 semifinals. Or, you could have a second full round of play (that's going to be a long day) before moving on to semifinals and/or final rounds. Locally, we get about 10 or 12 players at tournaments, so I'd probably run two full rounds before cutting to a top 2 final, which would be about a 7- or 8-hour tournament, including breaks.

Let's not take any inspiration from Attack Wing, which is the definition of poorly designed.

Complicating a simple game strategy premise is rarely beneficial.

Considering that Escalation is an official tournament format and works just fine, I'd say there's a lot of potential for fun variant tournament formats.

Yes, Star Trek Attack Wing has a reinforcement sideboard.

Cash cow. Poorly designed.

Imp vs imp is fine because different moffs came into conflict with each other, the emperor wanted them fighting each other rather than plotting against him.

Reb vs reb is a problem though.

Not necessarily. There are mercenary groups outfitted quite similar to the Rebs, and the Empire was known for using them. Just pretend your fighting a merc band hired by the Empire to attack you.

I remember reading in one of my old RPG manuals about the Empire having hired 2 different merc groups to attack the Rebs on different fronts. After they defeated the Rebs, the Empire told the 2 different merc groups that the other was more Rebs and that they were to attack each other so as to wipe each other out saving the Empire having to pay them. One of the mercs who survived the betrayal joined the rebellion afterwords.

The current and previous vassal tournaments on Team Covenant have had players use two squads. At the start, each player sets a dial to either a 1 or 2 maneuver to chose which squad they're going to use, then they reveal their dials simultaneously. It worked out really well, keeping it from getting boring or monotonous.

Let's not take any inspiration from Attack Wing, which is the definition of poorly designed.

Not in it's entirety but yeah, it's pretty freaking awful. Too many clipped corners that were actually balance mechanics.

Yes, Star Trek Attack Wing has a reinforcement sideboard.

Cash cow. Poorly designed.

Cash cow is a very good description. Hell I bought a Defiant blister just because I love that ship. That's when I actually read the rules...Now I have a defiant flying around my desk at work for no apparent reason!

Sideboards do NOT work in X-Wing. When you prepare to send your ships out you may have some idea what they may run into, the metagame, but you will not specifically know what is out there until you face it and by that time it is too late to make changes.

I will point out that in MtG EVERY match starts with the same deck. It is only AFTER the first game of a match is played that the sideboard comes into use. That just doesn't apply in X-Wing as matches are determined by a single game.

Perhaps some future game option will come in that allows you to make choices when the game starts but such an option should be LESS EFFICIENT than just building one option into a squad to start with. Often the "sideboard" desires seem to be restricted to ordnance and maybe other upgrade options. My question is how much of a premium would you pay to be able to swap out an Assault Missile for a Cluster Missile because it should NOT be free.

The only "sideboard" like option I see as really being valid is the "two list" method that was already mentioned in the first reply. You would enter a tournament with two lists (which really should NOT need to be different if you don't want them to be) and at the start of each game you would allow your opponent to review what you MIGHT use while you do the same; after a brief review period each player secretly locks in what list they will ACTUALLY use and then the game is played with those two list. Sure there could be all kinds of "rules" regarding the two lists but as long as each list is legal on its own it should work fine as you could see two lists that are almost the same with a few things altered or you could see a player bring two radically different lists who hopes to throw out the right one to defeat his opponent.

That just doesn't apply in X-Wing as matches are determined by a single game.

I think that's a result of the relatively long playtime, not necessarily what's good for determining the best player in an event. Best-of-two or best-of-three would be a better indicator of player skill, and that opens the possibility of sideboarding. In fact, I think best-of-two or best-of-three with sideboarding is a much better test of player skill, since it tests a player's adaptability in squad-building.

It would be no problem to add sideboarding to a Vassal tournament and do best-of-three, since you have plenty of time. For a tournament in a real-world venue, you'd want to manage time more carefully, but I'm sure it can be done. In fact, I'll probably run a tournament using the rules I posted earlier in this thread, since we do all kinds of variant tourney formats.

IMO Sideboards are not needed - it somewhat diminishes the list-buidling aspect of the game and I don't like it that one bit.

If you allow the players control over their match-ups pre-game (by allowing list changes) no considerations are needed how a list can take on Rock, Paper and Scissors in a day; list will propably revert to a stage where they become delivery vehicles for ship A, B or C which is purpose-built to take out Rock, Paper or Scissors.

Following the introduction of a Sideline, much of the planning ahead and actualy strategizing will be gone as you no longer have to contend with considerations that a list, which has to stand 3 to 4 games that day, is lacking against Rock but will knock Paper out of the park and is reasonably good against Scissors (or any other combination of the above) - and that no matter what you choose you have no guarantee that you will be playing either Paper or Scissors. For the case that you are then faced-off against Rock (even soley against Rock) you will have to make a back-up plan that plays your lists strenghs and weaknesses or reconsider and find a list that is not as purpose build.

This forces you not to play to not just choose lists that specialize in Rock, Papar or Scissors (unless you are inclined to take the risk) but take list that has reasonable chances against all three.

That you are forced into more generalistic lists also decreases the ammount of games that are won or lost solely because of Rock-Paper-Scissors-match ups. This is turn decreases the frustrations of players with the game as the reasons for loosing have be the found in either players moves, not in their pre-game preperations.

EDIT: The idea to bring two seperate list and then have to randomly select which one you are playing ... that might just add some spice to an event BUT it would also mean that different matches by the same player would hardly be as comparable, calling into question how these games should be scored.

(not to mention how you mitigate both list being essentially the same list)

As for the Imersion debate, ask yourselves this serious question:

Do you really go to competetive events for immersive play or for chance to compete against others at the best of their game?

You are oversimplifying match up interactions by a lot. Also how can you get to ignore the RPG if you don't know what list will your opponent play ?

Playing more generalist lists that are take all comers is what we do today. that doesn't change, except that you can have one take all comer, and a weird counter for stuff you dislike playing against with your take all comer list.

Two list system has been used mostly for mission based tournaments on miniature gaming, where you change your list depending on the mission. But i can see its merits for xwing.

If you were to run a sideboard (which doesn't really work very well since it is hard to juggle the points precisely), you would want it to be a core list with two sideboard additions and you secretly choose which one you will use after viewing your opponent's list. You don't want to have people sitting down, doing list building between games.

But really, I don't think that it is required at this stage.

IMO Sideboards are not needed - it somewhat diminishes the list-buidling aspect of the game and I don't like it that one bit.

...

EDIT: The idea to bring two seperate list and then have to randomly select which one you are playing ... that might just add some spice to an event BUT it would also mean that different matches by the same player would hardly be as comparable, calling into question how these games should be scored.

(not to mention how you mitigate both list being essentially the same list)

As for the Imersion debate, ask yourselves this serious question:

Do you really go to competetive events for immersive play or for chance to compete against others at the best of their game?

Agreed with the "sideboards are not needed part."

Where is the idea that you'd use a RANDOM list if you could bring two coming from? I believe most of us who think that would be an "answer" to sideboard desires say that you bring two lists, look at your opponents lists, and then CHOOSE which of your lists to actually play. Having to play a random list is just bad for business and makes little sense.

In an "immersion" debate there are already so many things that can be argued about. When it comes to the idea of multiple lists the immersion is simply deciding which one is actually out there when the time comes.