Really I don't care about siding or not in a given card game. I will play with or without depending of the offocial decision.

But many people have a wrong vision of the sideboard, or specificially, player have for me a strange vision of the sideboard.

SideBoard is really part of your deck, and must be taken into account during deck conception, just you have 0% chance to draw a card from your sideboard during a game.

Sideboard is allowing you to deckbuild during a game, I mean which CCG or LCG player does not like to tweak his game? Sideboard just allow you to tweak during round.

And moreover and because of the way you take for your argue, who can say "I am able to counter any strategy with a good probability", please make me dream, show me that list :-).

I agree that sideboard must not allow a player to change the "spirit" of his deck.

And I also agree that if in each order/destruction deck, side cards are the same, sideboard is less pertinent.

>> Sideboard is according you to deckbuild during a game, I mean which CCG or LCG player does not like to tweak his game? Sideboard just allow you to tweak during round.

I do like to tweak my game. Before the tournament ! :-D

I like an idea of a tournament where every player competes with one well-thought deck to see which one is the better in the current meta-game.

Not 3 or 4 variants of one deck you can change at every mid-round. Because that lowers the number of deck you can play, because suprise-decks, built to surprise the current meta-game by (ab)using its weakness (over-reliance on that card, on that decktype, etc) are a lot less effective when you kept a few counter in your side. That's a part of the deckbuilding I like in every CCG or LCG. I also like the idea that a daring player can win with a deck I could beat if I got the chance to counter it with a few cards I omitted. Good for him ! He dared play a deck like this. I should have though about it myself or integrated a few counter for it. Next time, I'll take it into account. The absence of siding allows a less conservative way of playing. You can be creative. You can surprise people.

I don't have any list to show you.. because it's not about building a deck winning against everything.. it's about building a deck that might win against the current metagame.

And I'm not even talking about dreaded "scouting" because it shouldn't be done by any players.. Even if it is.

Overseer Lazarus said:

Believe it! I preferred Spellfire (by a mile) back in the day due to better art, far better Multiplayer, and overall, just a better community and culture. Everyone has a reason for why they played or didn't play Magic.

Overseer Lazarus said:

I'm just not seeing where someone or anyone is "standing resolutely against Magic," Overseer??? All Dormouse has said it treat and approach this game as its own game - which is an eminently logical and fair request. That hardly means that he or anyone else here is against Magic. If they were, however, that would be their prerogative (of course).

Overseer Lazarus said:

Sigh. So we're down to pointing fingers then? What I've seen (and this is my best shot at taking an objective look at things) is that some players here (myself included) just want this game to have its own identity and be appreciated for what IT IS not what it ISN'T. That's not being "un-accomodating" or "close-minded" by any means. You could actually make a fairly reasonable argument that die-hard Warhammer: Invasion fans are actually asking players from other backgrounds to be "open-minded" themselves. I think drawing further attention - at this point - to the differences or mindsets among the players posting in these forums isn't going to help anymore, really.

Overseer Lazarus said:

Now this doesn't smack me as a terribly fair request to make: "No one argue with me because you'll be part of the problem if you do." Putting your debate opponents in a box like this doesn't serve the best purposes of the discussion itself. Unless you were referring to someone being mean or insulting back at you - in that case, you have a point. There shouldn't be ANY need to get snotty about this topic, in the end, we are ALL gamers.

Supa said:

Totally, TOTALLY agree - this makes a heck of a lot of sense to me. I think most of the players who have complaints with this decision are simply just really used to it being "that way" in their previously favorite game. Give everyone some time and they'll figure things out and realize that it's a great decision (again, imho).

Supa said:

What is this "scouting" that you're referring to??

Cain_hu said:

Cain_hu said:

But it is true. The mechanics allow for the use of all cards in a deck, that is an unarguable point. Whether a player chooses to do so is up to them, but this is still a fact. How useful a card is as a development as opposed to as itself is really based on your current match-up and board position. I never said that and didn't mean to imply that having development only cards in your deck would not hamper your decks effectiveness, but facts are facts you are going to get cards in your hand no matter the deck you build which are useless when you draw them. They may be a linchpin to victory a turn or two later, or your opponent may never let you materialize the board position you need to use the card effectively, in which case that almost awesome card is just dead weight... that is after all the reason why most competitive decks are about half units, because even if their special ability is not useful they can attack, soak up damage, provide resources, or provide card draw.

My argument about well balanced decks was not, nor had it ever been include your sideboard into your main deck. The very idea of a sideboard skews the process of building a main deck. I did say if something was so important to shore up an exploitable weakness in your deck that it should be in your deck, or you should redesign your deck so it is not so exploitable.

Rush can be broken and most rush decks I've seen do not brake gracefully but come to a screeching and crashing halt because they often have no or limited cards capable of breaking locks or their players have refused to develop trusting their speed to be all that is needed. All Plan A, no Plan B.

And there is some merit to the statement that Plan B distracts from Plan A, but this means your plan A needs to be resilient and able to shrug off disruption and push through tempo control... and few of those resilient decks seem to be the ones posted (there are some notable exceptions to this though).

As to a list of Banned cards because a lack of Sideboard... cite some evidence please. The only cards banned in Thrones have been because they were decided to be bad for the game as a whole (overpowered for the faction, wrong faction, or restrictive of design space). Singularly banning cards that slowly become abusive makes as much sense and is far easier on the wallet than rotation, which effectively bans entire blocks of cards. Even Magic bans or restricts cards, it is safe to assume that is likely to happen in any game customizable card game no matter the sideboard issue.

Supa said:

It isn't always a crutch for the poor deck builder but it is often a crutch. I know some ingenious deck builders whose insight into games astound me and they will use and abuse a sideboard, but when forced to build without it still build killer decks. Don't mistake the person exploiting the crutch as a person in need of the crutch. That would be a very bad strategic mistake.

Scouting is a keyword some characters... uh.. players have. ;-)

Kidding aside, it's a bad behavior some players might have in tournament environnement : After wraping up a game with an opponent, they might walk in the room, take a look at the table where other players are playing, see the cards played, sometime even looking at their hands (!).. or might try to get some informations from other players ("Oh, so you've played against X.. What did he use ?"). It is usually quite hard to manage for a T.O. (tournament organizer), especially when the scout only tries to make players talk about other's deck.

So, a scouting player usually knows what is in your deck before your fist game with him. If the side isn't controlled by the T.O. before a match (and it doesn't happen when the T.O. is also a player), he might even try to change his deck before the first match.

PS: I know "Scouting" is probably a Magic-legacy term, but let's try to keep that kind of discussion for another thread. It's not a bad discussion but it tends to take over every thread. ;-)

Supa said:

Yeah, I've had to put up with scouting a lot over the years..... oh, and let be honest even hugely benefited from it from time to time (Raw Deal used to have a card called Censorship Match which meant you could specifically name a card and neither player could play that card. Funny enough, knowing the key cards in your opponents deck kinda helped with this and much scouting went on at some Raw Deal tournaments)

As for changing cards (which is blatant cheating by the way rather than scouting), as the WH:I floor rules specifically say Players are required to submit a deck list upon in order to enter I think that should help with players changing cards and decks. It's not fool-proof, and requires a good T.O. to enforce the rule when they are suspicoius of cheating, but having the need for decklists to be submitted and then the ability to check the cards against decklists during the tournament does pose a distinct risk to anyone deciding to cheat in this manner. And thats before you consider what the <cough> risk of reaction of the other players <cough> and future T.O.'s might be.

Wow, I had no idea that "scouting" was such a big no-no. Seems like it's only fair to try and garner any advance knowledge of your opponent that you can. It's not like you can change your deck anyway. Weird.

Wytefang said:

Different people have different views on that. Some people regard it as gaining an unfair advantage, others as simply tournament gamesmanship. In particular in the Raw Deal example I gave, knowing your opponents deck could allow you to neutralise his entire strategy, so scouting actually was actually the process of gaining an in-game advantage.

In WH:I you get into a similar situation as a Orc/Skaven player if you've done you groundwork effectively and by the second round of the tournament know basically everyones decks. Against every single Judgement deck you now know to developments from turn 1, and you know the Order decks which aren't running judgement, and so don't developments against them. Some people would class that as an unfair playing advantage, others as "just what happens at tournaments".

Being able to change your playstyle to adapt to your opponents strategy is undoubtly useful, but I don't see how T.O.'s are suppose to differenciate the normal chatter of excited players between rounds conversing and socialising with their friends about what just happened, from players who are actively scouting. Indeed, the two concepts crossover so much that to consider doing so is probably a fools errand.

It's fair to comment though that some players get really, really steamed up about this issue.

I can see why. I suspect that best 2 out of 3 and no sideboard will ameliorate this problem. A submitted deck list and no chance to alter your deck before you meet your opponent or in between games means surprise combo decks can pull it off once before the opponent knows what to expect and either built their deck with enough flexibility to make up for it in play or needs to revise strategies to prevent the combo from getting off at all.

Shindulus said:

Personally i'm against sideboarding, especially in WH:I because it's game mechanics already make sure that situational meta-card don't end up as dead cards in your hand, you can always play them as a development.

I am bothered by the fact that they have zero provision for how to handle ties or otherwise adjudicate situations where the game last longer and you do not have an answer as to best 2 out of 3 when 50 minutes expire. I am also worried that the updated FAQ will be as sparse as the tournament rules which is going to put a lot of pressure on T.O.s to prep for a bunch of potential arguments.

Supa said:

Supa said:

First : it's a very offensive and dishonest approach that siding is for bad players because you don't like it. It only means to me that you don't used a sidedeck ever competitely.

Second :

- I don't agree that it's enjoyable. I enjoy if somebody beats me by his skill, not because he have the "hole in Cain's plan combo-deck" which maybe sucks against all other decks present...

- If somebody win by suprise, and not by his superior gaming skill is something I dislike. Play "Circle of Protection : Red" against a monored deck in MtG and win by it is not a sign you builded a good deck, it is just because there is no answer to the card itself.

- It's not a new-meta if you weren't able to include an answer for all 534636 possible combos in a particular game.

- Winnig with the side ? Hardly. Even a 15 card side in MtG means only 3-5 cards changed between matches. If your uber-combo deck dies bcause I include a 3rd Pillage and 2 Grimgor in my orc deck, and you couldn't counter/hamper that with your own deck+sideboard it's a bad combo deck...

To be clear : I'm not against comboish decks, but in my view a good combo-deck not only includes a "very suprising" combo itself, but also have ways to try to protect the combo.

dormouse

You are right that banning over-powerfull cards also solves a problem in the long run, but I'm completely against banning. In Mítosz CCG we had a single banned and 3-5 limited )only 1 per deck) cards and even that fustrated me.

As I stated my main problem is that the two sides (Ordes vs Destruction) don't have the same effeciency in his toolkit.

Back on topic :

The tournament rules are incomplete... nothing about what happen after 50 minutes if there is no winner yet. Is this what we were waiting for ? But we have a full page cover for a one page tournament rule...

When could a TO check a deck if it's comply with the rules ? Who decides rules disputes ? (FAQ or not, there are still unanswered questions)

BTW normally I don't care about scouting, as discussing decks and the last round matches are pretty common anyway. But I was never a tourney-oriented player anyway.

dormouse said:

He shoots... aaaaand... he scores!!!

Dragonball Z had an interesting sideboard rule. Instead of going through your deck and choosing which cards you take out, you decide what card you want to put in and then pull out the same number of cards from your deck AT RANDOM. It made sideboarding really hard and costly.

I dislike how everyone in here is getting down on sideboards with the argument that the sideboard will beat the opponent, not taking into account that the opponent will also have a sideboard. In MtG there is a thing called a "transformational sideboard". It is where your whole sideboard is something you put in in order to completely change the strategy of your deck in subsequent games to throw off the opponent. It is a neat strategy, but also comes at a cost. You lose the option of putting in "silver bullet" cards against other specific strategies.

I think sideboards actually benefit a game. I agree that tournaments will be degenerate because of the lack of sideboards. Just adding in cards that you would have put into a sideboard will reduce the effectiveness of your opening hands. In a game against orc rush you have maybe 3 or 4 turns to draw that card you added to help there, but you have all those other cards you added to help in other matches and you have a lower chance of drawing what you need when you need it.

Bountyhunter said:

So you are an Ex- Raw Deal player? I played Raw Deal from the start until the end. That was a great game and scouting happened all the time because of pre-match cards. I never found it to be that big of a deal because you built your deck to adjust to cards you where worried about.

So how long did you play Raw Deal? Were are you from?

Wytefang said:

Note that I did concede that we all have different tastes, and that I'm all for that. My assessment had to do with how we all relate to one another, not that we have (inevitable) differences.

"Who throws a shoe.......?!"

Ah, okay.

And yeah, honestly, who throws a shoe? That really hurt.

Since there are no "official" rules in place to handle unfinished end of round situations I propose the following.

When end of round is announced;

1) Play continues until the Player that didn't start the current game ends his turn or one of the players is victorious, whichever comes first.

2) Completed games (games that had a winner by current rules) are tallied. Games that were not entirely completed are ignored.

3) If one player has more games won than the other he is declared the winner of the match.

4) If both players have an equal amount of wins then the match is considered a draw.

5) For calculating standings Match Wins are worth 4 points, Match Draws are worth 2 points and Match Losses are worth 1 point.

Playoff Positiong

If players are tied for the final spot to determine playoff final 4 positioning then break ties by determing:

1st - Most Wins

2nd - Head to Head Results

3rd - Have all tied players advance to playoffs and add one round with highest ranked players getting a bye round to determine final 4.

This is for Round Robin or League matches. Playoff matches would have no time limits and so would not require a tie breaker.

As for the sideboard, no sideboard debate. I don't see why there is any debate. I've read all the rules in the Warhammer: Invasion rule book and the FAQ and I don't see any mention of a sideboard. I know other games have such a thing but that doesn't mean every card game has to have it (Yes, I have played them). Play Warhammer: Invasion as Warhammer: Invasion and please don't try to convert it to other games you have liked. I like to play different games and not similar games with different scenarios.

There are quite a few Ex-Raw Deal players that have taken to WI from over here in the UK. I too am one who played the game from start to finish and to be honest it didnt really matter if you knew your opponents deck or not. That was probably in the main because even tho the card pool was large (no cards ever rotated out of the main tournament format the entire duration of the game being published) at any one time there were only about 60 or 70 cards other than the superstar cards that you ever saw in most decks.

Hellionus said:

Sideboard rules are typically not in rule books as they are tournament rules.

MartinSmudge said:

Umm, Martin, are you being seroius? Knowing your opponents cards was amazingly useful if you were running RTC and Censorship Match. It was also incredably useful just in general tournament play, as you were able to pre-plan your strategy atround it. When I went 7-0 through the swiss in the UK Nationals with Dude Love having a very good idea of the opponents cards and strategy proved to be an amazing adavantage in planning out my pre-match, I was able to completely shut down a tables deck for example by knowing to play Foley is Good, a card which would otherwise have just sat in my pre-match unused. In the now immortal words of our, so hip and happening, current Prime Minister "get real!"

Anyway, before we bore everyone to death with talk of anow defunct and dead card game of yesteryear, which really has no place here, back onto the point of the debate Cain_hu makes the very good point that the tournament rules are incomplete.

And, not just a little in-complete, a LOT incomplete in that they miss out the core information that any T.O. actually needs to know! If this was a student they'd get a 30% mark with a "must try better in future" remark, and something like "nice presentation does not make up for a lack of technical content."

Theres a distinct list of whats missing (which most people have covered in this thread) but to have a time limit of 3 games in 50 minutes and then forgetting to give a set of Time Out rules to T.O.'s is really putting the people running the regionals in a difficult position.

and my words became the sad truth...

As I predicted, and as the first tournament report shows it was really a rush-rush enviroment, with only 2 capital board played out of the 6 available.

Also, my point that a rush-deck which don't try to include answers for everything could easily dominate a format where including answers means a slow-down and a hard-time vs. rush in your deck became very true. As I read the top 3 were all rush... uhm... well... all the 12 out of 12 decks were all skaven based rush.

Also, based on Wytefang report it seems that even a small slow-down in an otherwise fast rush-oriented deck means a loss of match against another fast deck.

(btw, I have to admit I hoped that I'm too pessimistic and therefore wrong in my assesment)

Cain_hu said:

I'm not sure anyone really included answers for Skaven Rush in their deck, Whytefang including Grimgor as an answer to unitless bolt-thrower decks, which didn't help him much because like you mentioned 12 for 12 on Skaven Rush decks.

Right now, after 1 core set, 1 large expansion and 5 battlepacks the playing field is titlted heavily towards Skaven Rush but just because currently the answers to Skaven Rush are few and far between doesn't mean that rush decks will dominate all other decks in perpetuity.