Any word on whether we get a sideboard as part of tournament deck construction? Or will we have to lock in 1 deck exactly?

idk how side board is typically worded in rule books, so I'm not sure if it would have been stated in what we've seen already.

I don't think any FFG game does side boards. It only makes sense if you play a 2 out of 3 every round.

No mention of a side board, as of yet, but frankly, I doubt there will be one, there wasn't one in old l5r, and I recall someone else on this board saying that none of the other fantasy flight LCGs have them, so I wouldn't count on it.

Also, rules outlining sideboards would be clunky given that we have two decks, and there would rarely be any opportunities where side boarding would be a good idea, considering that this game is largely about board state as opposed to overall strategy, and just knowing what clan your opponent is playing shouldn't be enough information to tell you what anti-meta (because, let's face it, that's what sideboards are for) you should swap in.

1 hour ago, kiramode said:

I don't think any FFG game does side boards. It only makes sense if you play a 2 out of 3 every round.

^ This. Since we will play one game per round, it really don't matter much.

The tournament format is 1 game per round? I didn't know they already released this (or maybe it's just the way FFG does it with all of their games.) If the games are 1 round, the certainly there is no sideboard.

thx for the feedback, I've played LotR and Arkham LCG, but they are both co-op so I'm not familiar with FFG for competitive play.

They said that an average game will take between 45 - 90 min. That would be difficult to play multiple games per round. ^^'

Meh, they might do it how they did it in old l5r (l4r?) with 7 (maybe more, in some cases) rounds of swiss that are single round games, and then take the top players from that and do single elimination rounds that were 2 out of 3.

I still don't understand why sideboard is a thing?

Because some people in magic felt that 60 cards wasn't enough to cover every meta, but 80 cards were too many for a good deck, so now side boards are a thing in some games.

8 minutes ago, Brekekekiwi said:

I still don't understand why sideboard is a thing?

To adapt to the meta. Against Crane you might want to include better pol defense, where against Lion you want more mil defense. There are usually some cards you can swap out based on your opponent that let you play more optimally against them.

And you should be allowed to change on the fly instead of just having a different deck because...?

8 minutes ago, Brekekekiwi said:

And you should be allowed to change on the fly instead of just having a different deck because...?

Because it creates more interesting meta, and prevents more powerful decks from dominating the format just because the cards that counter them are unusable in another match up

1 hour ago, Brekekekiwi said:

And you should be allowed to change on the fly instead of just having a different deck because...?

Are you genuinely asking? Or are you just trying to act smug? Seriously wondering here, because there are solid reasons why a sideboard is good, as there are reasons to play a best 2 out of 3 format instead of 1-off swiss rounds. I'm going to explain it, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't just trying to be a jack *** online.

Generally - Swiss Rounds gets through rounds quicker, and people aren't eliminated straight off so even if they lose they may stick around to enjoy more games. It doesn't give a lot of room to adapt to your opponent though, as you go into each match effectively blind. Some janky decks can steal wins here against strong players by getting lucky, and since there is no run back that's just how the score is settled, even if 9 more replays would give 9 wins to the other player. Faster more aggressive decks tend to reign supreme as they capitalize on the inability to adapt.

Doing a first to 2 with a side board allows you to build a baseline structure to your deck, with situational cards based on what you may face. You have a decklist that reports what your deck will include on game 1, and a limited number of cards that you can switch out before games 2 and 3. The sideboard and deck structure allow you to adapt to your opponent's decks between games allowing both players to perform more optimally against each other. Multiple plays are required meaning decks need to be more well thought out and balanced, taking into account all of the other types of decks they may face. Off-meta decks can shine here when crafted by creative and skilled players, as the sideboard can help win without staying with a "tried and true" deck build.

The core concept here is that players can perform "most optimally" against each other. I prefer a tournament where there is a swiss pool first to thin the herd, then cut to top X (depending on tournament size) and play first to 2 (possibly with double elimination.) This gives you a way to manage a larger pool of entries while still testing the top performers to allow the absolute best to rise. The swiss round - best of 1 - format is typically used simply to cut down on tournament time and, as cliche as it sounds, appeal to a more casual audience who wants to show up and play, and doesn't care about which player or deck was actually the best in game.

I wouldn't mind Influence doing double duty as a sideboard, allowing you to swap influenced cards (and only them) between games.

Yeah, I admit that sounded smug, but it also was genuine. I can easily see the logic behind the first to two system, being a better way to see who is better. As certainly one of casual players, I'm a huge fan of swiss before the cut at least.

I still find the side board itself a bit weird though. I would have thought having to run less optimal builds in order to account for more possibilities would be the more skillful intensive way to do things. It just seems a bit like having cake and eating it.

Note: played Conquest the last couple of years and no other card games ever, so very casual. But, it piqued my interest enough that I'm checking out L5r.

57 minutes ago, WHW said:

I wouldn't mind Influence doing double duty as a sideboard, allowing you to swap influenced cards (and only them) between games.

That's the only way that I can imagine side board rules being done in a two deck game without getting really unruly.

Also, while I understand the value of a side board, I doubt one would be a huge help in a game like this, as what makes an optimal play here depends more on the current game state than anything else, and any if you have any particular match ups that are just bad for you without tweaking your deck, you are going to need to do more tweaks than reasonable side board rules for a game like this could allow for, because if it gets to the point where in order for, say, a dragon deck to be effective against anyone but crane, it needs to tank against crane, any changes you would need to make to your deck to still be competitive against crane would likely be large enough that it would essentially be a totally different deck, which is far beyond what a sideboard is ever supposed to be able to do. Therefore, unfortunately if the meta ever gets that unbalanced, then there isn't much you can do but grin and bear it until the meta swing more in your favor, but hopefully it'll never come to that.

Yeah I think you guys are right that a side board may not work well since we have 2 decks, and also that every deck is mostly a single clan. The neutral cards and influence cards are likely the only real variables. I haven't played this game yet even to test out lion / crane but I'm glad to hear people feel the board state is more important than deck composition. I think that speaks well for the game as it means less people will flock to the "meta deck" and instead stick with their favorite clans.

I believe the closest thing to a sideboard in an FFG card game was this (back when AGoT was a CCG):

Hmm. there was an image when I submitted the post...

9 hours ago, shosuko said:

Generally - Swiss Rounds gets through rounds quicker, and people aren't eliminated straight off so even if they lose they may stick around to enjoy more games. It doesn't give a lot of room to adapt to your opponent though, as you go into each match effectively blind. Some janky decks can steal wins here against strong players by getting lucky, and since there is no run back that's just how the score is settled, even if 9 more replays would give 9 wins to the other player. Faster more aggressive decks tend to reign supreme as they capitalize on the inability to adapt.

Nothing there requires a sideboard, however. Swiss rounds progression alone can help smooth out the "janky" decks you were worried about.

Honestly, I haven't tested just yet myself (although I did just get tts, so... SOON!!!), so I was mostly taking the designers' word for it. They could very well end up being wrong (while I don't know about FFG specifically, it wouldn't be the first time for designers and playtesters in general to miss some kind of important imbalance that throws everything out of whack), but I hope that they aren't, as if they are correct in their assessment for how play turns out, then this could easily turn into my favorite card game of all time, as, while I love deck building and the level of strategy inherent therein, I always prefer games that test your skill in strategy and tactics directly against that of your opponents in the moment, as in a game with a high level meta with certain uber strategies (where a sideboard would actually make a difference), it gets to the point where the entire game is decided from the very first card(s) played (in some extreme cases, it's even decided as soon as the players decide who plays first, this was the case for awhile in yugioh, and was the reason I quit yugioh and switched to l5r in 2011), and that just isn't fun for me, even if I'm the one winning.

37 minutes ago, psychie said:

Honestly, I haven't tested just yet myself (although I did just get tts, so... SOON!!!), so I was mostly taking the designers' word for it. They could very well end up being wrong (while I don't know about FFG specifically, it wouldn't be the first time for designers and playtesters in general to miss some kind of important imbalance that throws everything out of whack), but I hope that they aren't, as if they are correct in their assessment for how play turns out, then this could easily turn into my favorite card game of all time, as, while I love deck building and the level of strategy inherent therein, I always prefer games that test your skill in strategy and tactics directly against that of your opponents in the moment, as in a game with a high level meta with certain uber strategies (where a sideboard would actually make a difference), it gets to the point where the entire game is decided from the very first card(s) played (in some extreme cases, it's even decided as soon as the players decide who plays first, this was the case for awhile in yugioh, and was the reason I quit yugioh and switched to l5r in 2011), and that just isn't fun for me, even if I'm the one winning.

Holy run-on-sentences Batman.

However, against what I think is your point, the LCG model can sometimes end in some weird meta environments as evergreen cards permanently define the environment, and FFG has the tradition/promise of no rapid removal of cards, especially from the core and deluxe sets. Especially, 2 years down the line when the legal card pool has tripled, and the only way to meta stuff is to add cards.

However, I don't think it will be reasonable for us to see "sideboarding" as a thing. As stated, games are too slow to allow changes to your deck between games.

Duels are not best two out of three. The amateur may have gotten lucky, but the veteran is still dead.

That said, I'm good with "winner" and "loser" brackets with no side board.

I would be pro-sideboard based on clan card. It would create another element to the game that would require a good deal of skill.

But I can see why you wouldn't want to add extra elements that would require extra deck checking a extra rules to deal with.

To be clear - I'm not "pro sideboard" or "anti-sideboard" it was just a question. I don't think it's needed for the game to be good, or to have high level play. Even with just a static deck build I feel the cards look powerful for all clans, with good tactics already in play just with the fate, and rings mechanic! I'm super excited for this game!!!

7 hours ago, Gaffa said:

Nothing there requires a sideboard, however. Swiss rounds progression alone can help smooth out the "janky" decks you were worried about.

I wasn't going to respond to this one but there is a situation I've experienced that comes to mind that really shows where meta can go, as well as where sideboards can help keep a janky meta in check.

I used to play the My Little Pony CCG game competitively. There were some decks that would come about that were not interactive in their method of victory which would go off unexpectedly and end the game in a single turn. There were a few cards that could be added to any deck to beat them, and once you beat that combo the deck essentially fell apart. There was no sideboard though, which meant every deck that wanted to be competitive needed certain cards just to counter that odd deck they may or may not face. Basically if you didn't have any of these few cards that deck always won, if you did have these that deck always lost.

The problem is that these eat into the actual deck design, and you are then weaker against other decks that don't consider that janky deck. The janky deck ran the meta into a chaotic storm. There was no sideboard in MLP:CCG, and the game designers eventually restored to a ban list to help calm the meta down. If there was a sideboard then I could have easily played a general deck with a few cards to put in to shut down the janky deck rather than have a weaker build just to cover against the crazies.

I'm not saying every game needs it - but there is certainly a situation I've lived through where it would have helped tremendously. Swiss rounds may put the jank deck against several people, where someone would beat them... but that doesn't change my game with them, or my game with other people who have a stronger deck that may beat me, while they lose to the jank, and I beat the jank... Bad 3 way tie there that would be solved with a side board.