Bountyhunter said:

Raw Deal? You mean the game that has a sideboard built right into the rules called a Backlash Deck? And pleeeease don't say "that's not the same as a sideboard". It's the most insidious kind: the social sideboard!

Overseer Lazarus said:

Not only was it not a sideboard, your comment is both mis-leading and erronous. The addition of the Backlash deck (in the expansion set "Backlash" funny enough) was the addition of cards which were integral to your deck.

You didn't switch cards in or out of your deck, your Backlash deck was part of your deck, and you played with exactly the same cards in that deck every game.

Hi,

As I played at least 2 different card games above W:I and MtG for years I have my opinion on sideboarding.

In an enviroment where winning 2-3 card combos are impossibe, or don't need narrow cards to stop them sideboarding is not needed, even distracting.

Hovewer in a card game where your otherwise fine deck, which could win or at least fight competively 95% of the decks while auto losing to other 5% (which is maybe many different non archetypical deck) then sideboarding is a must. For example an infinite Gift of Anearion combo could not be stopped by orcs without Mob Up! or BT, which is a dead card in many other cases... as many cards are useless against an unitless deck, and not many cards can deal with a Dragonmage+Gromil Armour+(Blessing of Isha) etc etc.

As the card pool increases more and more deadly "deal with me" combo will appear, each with a different answer. Including an answer for all will become more and more impossible, except if they print more general cancel effects.

Those games where many of your cards are "Use this card only as a development", or when you don't have a response at all are not representative about your gaming skill, and more importantly : those games are not fun at all.

So I think sideboarding in W:I is needed (or at least good) for turnaments, but not for casual play.

I've managed to play Raw Deal and L5R for years and not need a sideboard. I can see why they are needed in some games, but I see them in general as a crutch. Players should learn to make difficult choices about the cards they put into their decks.

I would rather see the game designers produce a game that didn't need sideboards to allow for fair games.

I have little experiance with card games but belive the that side boards are bad for this game.

Reasons I think this are

- You dont have to have 50 cards and SHOULD be more flexible with your tactics.

- You can chosse how many cards you draw so should be able to get some useful cards.

- You can develop dead cards and always bring them back.

- It slows the game down and makes rush less effective I think.

- Its a greater challenge.

But like I say I have little experiance and these are just my opinion.

Bountyhunter said:

I went on a lot longer than I intended, but each thought lent itself to the next. Please believe that I am not being aggressive or argumentative, as I don't feel anyone else has been, either. We have strong opinions on the matter, and that's right cool. I really do concede the point and will let it ride completely.

Fear my Goldust Deck of Shattered Dreams!!! (Can't believe I let Alex talk me into tagteaming with his Booker deck......)

Overseer Lazarus said:

Ah... you've just destroyed all your credability... I mean... Golddust and Booker T! You're also correct, its a rather meaningless and empty arguement to have given the way the game went in the end.

Back on the subject of WH:I and sideboards, I really don't mind what the decision is as long as an actual decision is made. It would be very silly if each of the regionals, due to a lack of direction, each had/made-up their own floor rules simply because of a lack of direction from the game designers.

A standardisation of format is pretty key to formalising any kind of competitive play, and I think the thrust of my point is that I really don't mind if we have sideboards or not in tournament formats so long as it's a consistant rule. I'd hate to be going to a tournement in Sheffield and finding that I can use a 8 card sideboard and then the next week to a tournament in Manchester where they either don't allow one or allow a 15 card one.

On the subject of tournament rules, a good set of multiplayer ones would be nice to have too!

Overseer Lazarus said:

No they are not. It is a lot of games following in M:tG footsteps, but neither of the other LCG's use Sideboards and there is a wide variety of deck types that show up and differences between regions, nations and even continents.

With the draw and development mechanics this game does not even remotely come close to needing sideboards. Side boards are a crutch. There are no such things as bad match-ups just bad decks. Too many expensive units and find yourself getting swarmed? Include resets and less expensive cards. Find yourself getting your troops killed again and again? Add some sturdier units. The balanced deck reigns supreme because it stands the best chance of beating the field. You can build decks that are narrowly focused in what they seek to accomplish and then include numerous cards to shore up your own weaknesses, you draw them when you don't need them they become a development, something that most decks should be dropping every turn any way.

What is the risk of including the necessary precautionary cards in your play deck? That you may draw them instead of something else you really need... but that is true of any given card that does not immediately improve your position or set up one of your combos. The better you get at building your deck, the better you get at choosing cards that will allow your to force your will on your opponent while still protecting your own board. check out the Game of thrones forum and check out the decks there to get an idea how a community can not just adapt but grow when the only thing they have to rely on is the deck they brought with them.

Overseer Lazarus said:

Except most coaches will use the same starting line up and the same pitcher, but adjust their tactics and coverage, and type of pitch and the order thrown. Same goes for this game. I have a card to stop the Orc Rush... have you seen a single card in this game that attacks only a single race? That defends against only a single race? Every card in this game has some usefulness on its own regardless of the capital board you face. Now sure some of the abilities could potentially be lest useful, say Zealot Hunter or Harpies depending on the specific build, but a lot of deck swill include neutral or other race units for powerful effects so there is a very good chance when you play him he will have a target other than himself, and even rush decks can end up with a number of cards in their hand and control decks almost guarantee it... but in both cases you still have a unit which can attack and defend and be turned into a development otherwise.

The other assumption you are making here is that every deck is better at being 50 cards. Neither developer on this game has ever worried about sticking to a 50 card deck. The dynamic method of drawing allows for decks to perform very well at larger sizes, this actually allows for those silver bullet cards to be included in a deck and for you to draw aggressively without worrying about decking yourself.

darkdeal said:

And you know this how? There hasn't been a major tournament yet since Ulthuan came out so you haven't seen what is going on in other competitive metas. This is supposition. As a long time Game of Thrones player were the minimum is 60 cards in a deck and no sideboard, I've seen rush decks get blown out of the water again and again in high level tournament play to 65-75 card control decks.

I am also not assuming that is going to hold true here... but as I mentioned neither Nate French nor James Hata worry about cutting decks down to 50 cards, that should say something.

Shhh, Dormouse!! Let them all think it's utterly necessary for every deck to be at 50 cards - that'll make our games that much easier come tourney time!

HEHEHEHEE!!

Sideboards are a bad idea and not necessary at all. I have played dozens of card games and never once even considered using a side board. Your deck should be built to win no matter who you play against, its part of the challenge of deck design. Sideboards take away from this.

dormouse said:

dormouse said:

Hoo boy. How can I remain diplomatic here?.... This is not a debate that I'm willing to entertain. For us to get anywhere with this would require both sides to take objective, impersonal stances and argue the merits of the points themselves, not simply attempt to persuade observers with impassioned rhetoric. Statements like "following in M:tG footsteps" and "sideboards [sic] are a crutch" and "no such things as bad match-ups" show a bit too much opinionated investment for this to go anywhere but downhill. I feel that my dissenter is taking an incredibly myopic approach to the sideboard discussion as a whole by ignoring the facts that match-ups are at the heart of EVERY competitive event and that the M:tG style of tournament has maintained dominance in the industry for definitive reasons, one of which is the use of sideboards. But I also ackowledge the fact that he has the defensible right to his personal feelings and I won't attack him for that in the least. To be clear: 1) All one has to do is peruse the tournament reports in this very forum to see people talking of hitting a match-up that was unfavorable to their particular identity, let alone listen to any sports postgame show. 2) I have absolutely no love for Tragic at all. I've said it before and I'll continue to ring it from the mountaintops. I no longer play the game. I haven't for many, many years. I allowed my DCI judge certification to lapse many moons ago with prejudice. I am not advocating Magicizing our killer, innovative game. But I am rational and practical enough to fully analyze the strengths and weaknesses of all tournament elements, in an unbiased manner, in an effort to further perfect both the experience and the end results. If someone else does the same and arrives at a different conclusion, I can and will respect that.

dormouse said:

The other assumption you are making here is that every deck is better at being 50 cards. That is correct. I am. But it's not an assumption. It's a conclusion I've arrived at after 17 1/2 years of cardgaming and reaching the finals of the BattleTech TCG World Championships at Origins(which, I'm just beaming to mention, allowed 8-card sideboards) and the semifinals of the MLB Showdown Southeastern Regional tournament (which allowed 15-card sideboards). Again, it's a math thing. Reduce the permutations of drawing a single card and increase the probability of the deck functioning as designed.

My points have been made. Debate is not a sport for me, but a means of gaining wisdom and sharpening ideas through the valuable input of others. And by the way, THREE consecutive, lengthy posts in rebuttal? Really? ".....for they think that they will be heard for their much speaking"

I respect your opinions on this, Overseer but I would like to point out that perhaps if you've tried several tournaments without sideboards, you might discover that it works just as well, also. Since you've spent much of your CCG gaming time leaning on that crutch (pardon my analogy, it is favorable towards my opinion on the matter, I'll admit) perhaps a period of time walking on your own, if you will, may help you see the positives about sideboard usage, too?

I can appreciate that you've had no small amount of tournament success in a couple other games but at the same time I'm not (entirely) convinced that it makes your arguments on this matter all that much more valid.

I'm torn on this - part of me secretly likes the idea of being able to sideboard in stuff. After all who wouldn't? The easier path is always more appealing - just ask Darth Vader (now I know that I've hit maximum geekosity - I'm using Star Wars references to preach for me)!

Using a sideboard just seems to add another twist rather than truly benefiting deck-design savvy and in the end, that's why I'm mostly against it.

Actually Over-seer you haven't been un-opinionated in your own posts. The reason why my posts sit with you the way they do is because I simply echoed your passionate posts but from the other side. No one honest with them self can say all serious modern competitive games use sideboards and claim to be anything but passionately opinionated. That kind of language does not even begin to imply an open mind on the subject. Your further posts and responses continue to give this impression.

You went on about your experiences, but which games have you played on a competitive level that don't use sideboards? I want to know if you have any experience with competitive deck design and high level play where side boards were not allowed. I think that is extremely relevant if we are going to speculate that your opinions have any weight to them in regards to sideboards in general. I have played as far as regionals in Magic in the first two years of competitive play. I've used side boards and recognize them for what they are, a means to give your deck diversity without having to clog up the main deck.

I could rattle off my various card game wins, credentials, and other interesting tid-bits on my curricula vitae but none of it ultimately matters to this specific disc because no one has much experience in this game when it comes to competitive play. Everything else is empirical evidence at best. Suffice to say I've played this game since before it was in general release. I was taught to play by it's original lead developer Nate French. I've played against play testers and FFG staff.

You have expressed why you think side boards are good in general but have not dealt with any issues that are specific to this game. What about this game makes sideboards a necessity? Drop all other references and your urge to draw from past experiences in other games, and explain clearly what about this game requires the use of a side board or how using a sideboard can improve the experience of playing games. Then explain how it can be both necessary and improve the experience, but will is not needed in social play?

As to the 50 card limit, I have in the past shown mathematically how this game does not decrease the effectiveness of a deck in real life terms. I can do so again if you want, but the long and short of it is the math behind a min-max deck with a minimum ideal draw for a deck makes very basic assumptions that do not truly reflect the realities of game play, namely that there is a single card represented in your deck in a random position (or in three random positions) that is the perfect answer to what you need at any given point in the game. When you do the math to compensate for a deck with synergistic design and a variable to aggressive draw a larger deck actually shows demonstrable higher rates of drawing the needed effect. We cannot assume in a min-max deck the ability to have the same representation of synergistic cards due to the need to balance effects across a range of costed cards to ensure an ideal setup hand, nor can we assume the ability to vary our card draw because each card has to serve such a narrow purpose to make the min-max deck effective, nor can we assume the ability to draw aggressively since drawing your last card means an automatic loss in this game.

So what the final result is that a somewhat larger deck when built with this in mind can provide far more options to a given problem while still being able to put forward its main strategy in an aggressive manner that duplicates the same kind of statistical pulls of effects that a smaller deck can get yet is unable to reliably draw aggressively because of the constant risk of an automatic loss.

As to three lengthy rebuttal posts, they were to three separate posts, each length in it's own right. No one forced you to read all of them or any of them. Commenting on the fact that there were three is a little ridiculous.

dormouse said:

Honestly, I have no desire to go back and pee on the same fire hydrant. I can tell that some people are used to being the smartest one (or, at least, the one with the most verbal acuity, anyway) in the room, and I don't need to usurp anyone. We gamers can be a prickly sort, and I will freely admit that I've had to deal with myself on some seriously debilitating pride issues. In the past, I would have fired off a grocery list of credentials and accomplishments for no other reason than to impress myself. These days, I love helping out new players and folks with questions far more than philosophical fencing. I've shown all the points necessary to defend my stance, as have others for their own. The rest, as they say, is for you to decide.

Oh, and dormouse. Although I emphatically disagree with most all of your opinions posited in a cavalcade of threads, I do tip my hat to your tenacity and command of the language. A bit pedantic and lacking cogency on certain topics, but all in all a worthy sparring partner. Against all odds, you're pretty all right by me, bro. One thing, though. I've noticed your use of the word 'empirical' on a couple of occasions, in this thread referring to my experience in other card games as "empirical evidence at best". Empirical, as it is used here, means derived from observation or experience, which really lends credence to my points, not detracts from them. I believe the word you were looking for was 'anecdotal'.

You're still aces in my book, regardless.

Basically sideboarding would effect the game greatly... because while Order have general answer cards (High Elf Disdain the best example) then this is what Destruction lacking.

Don't take it as an offense, but I think it's a lame logic that you could manage your card draw, and you could develop "useless" cards so what's matter ?

I tell, that in the above case the matter is : If you draw these "dead" cards early you will have less possibilities in the early turns and you will stay behind your opponent in resource/card drawing easily. If you have more of these answer cards then the chance increases.

A sideboardless enviroment could mean there will be 3 archetypical decks could remain in the long run :

- Rush deck : try to win before other deck pull of their stuff

- Combo decks : Hopefully nobody included a response for your narrow deck, or won't draw it before you win...

- Control decks (Order only) : lots of cancel affects, wearing down the opponent on the long run

The real problem is that the first archetype is not producing interesting gameplay in the long run, and the other two mostly kills the flavour (big armies battling each other) which is one of the main advantage W:I have above MtG.

In my eyes the different Bolt Thower decks were the first sign to turning in this direction... destroying a whole army and a Capital Fortress without combat, or even without a single combat unit in BF with millions of arrows ? Eh...

(I would hapily see a mechanism to overrun and destroy unguarded siege equipment... since currently Pillage! Demolition or Burn it Down is almost a must have in all decks except rush)

Dear dormouse... you don't have to hammer your opinion like this.

BTW increasing your deck size significally WILL affect your chance to win if you need to draw a paricular card (a support removal or a board reset card for example), or even if you have to draw those cards which enable you to pull of 2 extra power in turn 1, except if you increase the number of the particular type of cards accordingly.

I have a lot of experience with the hungarian Mythos CCG which don't allow sideboards, and it's playing style didn't needed one... hovewer it had a "banned" card list (including only 3 or 4 cards) which could not be played in tournaments. It's somewhat like W:I and MtG in some respects (it has units called as leaders, instant effects and mostly combat oriented gameplay)

Sidenote : I would rather favor sideboarding in most games than banning anything, or rewriting already printed cards as it was done with Shrine to Nurgle... and since the developers are humans in every game (at least in my knowledge even FFG don't have gods as their employees) they ocassionally makes mistakes and therefore produce game breaking combos and/or cards.

Maybe it's just me, but I feel that's it is VERY annoying that I have to reference erratas to play a card instead just reading it's text, or to don't be able to use a card because it's banned.

dormouse said:

Not derail this thread, but could you link to this working because I can't see how increasing your deck size will give you more access to the cards you want to see.

i fully support the no sideboarders !

this prevent people from making original decks, and gives an unfair advantage to certain factions like Orcs and their anti-support pool for example.

IMO, sideboards are bad for this game.

Overseer Lazarus said:

Overseer, having read all of your posts and Dormouse's (and knowing neither of you in real life, thus no inherent bias one way or the other here) - I do agree with Dormouse that you were every bit as passionate and opinionated in your posts as he was in his. I didn't see any real neutral objectivity from your posts either.

I have to admit that I was also a bit disappointed (for lack of a better word) that you felt compelled to slip in the unnecessary jab at Dormouse with this comment, "I can tell that some people are used to being the smartest one (or, at least, the one with the most verbal acuity, anyway) in the room, and I don't need to usurp anyone." If you really didn't care about his presentation of opinions or how "intelligent" they were or appeared to be, you'd simply not even state something of that nature, knowing that it was a bit of a backhanded insult. Hopefully that's not quite what you meant as this was a (mostly) interesting and friendly discussion, I felt, up to that point.

I found this sentence also a bit grating and/or prideful on your part, "I do tip my hat to your tenacity and command of the language. A bit pedantic and lacking cogency on certain topics.." This type of remark doesn't do much more than put your vast and masterful command of the English language on a pedestal above us all - as if somehow Dormouse would appreciate that you find his arguments (at times) to be pedantic or lacking "cogency" (because that word isn't pedantic at all, right?). That kind of remark doesn't end up as some sort of humorous sideways wink but rather as an arrogant challenge to others of us that may very well be quite capable in that whole Engalish (tongue-in-cheek misspelling inserted for effect) thing.

There's no way to word these two points in such a way as to not offend, I suppose, but I wanted you to be aware of how those remarks came across. Instead of responding to Dormouse's direct question/challenge, to leave aside past experience with sideboarding game and lay out a logical reason why you think Side-boarding should be used based on W:I's gameplay and ruleset, you seem to have just dodged this challenge and tossed out a few backhanded insults instead. Again, it's a bit of a bummer since you guys were really digging into some interesting stuff and I was enjoying the overall discussion.

He knows how his remarks came across and I enjoyed them. I've said it before... there are literally TWO people here who "come across" as self-anointed (wannabe) leaders of this community, and it has gotten so old, so quickly.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa

Love it

f7eleven said:

Says the gamer who insulted the entire site in a different thread for not being "good enough" at this game or for not being competitive enough. Hmm...somehow you've really convinced everyone here. ::: rolls eyes and chuckles to self :::