Hey Kingdom Hearts community,

I have been pondering and discussing with friends and fellow players of the game about a sideboard and I thought I would bring the discussion into the public eye.

"I think a sideboard in this game would be awesome. Yes, it's true you would have certain decks that are just better than others, but it's a TCG and that's already the case anyway. With a sideboard you would have more justification to run a certain deck if you could sideboard hate against the decks that give you the most issues, whether it's putting in more darks and Chesire Cats to counter a good world rush deck or it's taking out your dark cards and putting in that extra Sephiroth and third Pinocchio against the control match-up. Cards would be further looked into and decks would be better since you could sideboard any match-up specific cards you have in your deck.

In my opinion, without a sideboard, the balance of the game is in a way doomed, If one dark card is over-powerful then world rush decks won't be able to compete as they would have no consistent way of dealing with it, and would never be able to win a set. On another note too is if a player card is over-powered and there is no legitimate way to stop it then other decks would have to invest current deck space just to answer it, thus creating a imbalance in the game. if you sideboard and answer to it then yes, it would still be powerful, but at least you would have a consistent way of potentially beating it. though broken cards are broken regardless of game mechanics.

Having a sideboard only creates more options to those who wish to use them, if certain players don't like sideboards then they simply don't have to play with one, but players that do have the option of doing so. Options in a TCG is never ba d.

A sideboard would give the developers more room to play around with with designing new cards, or rather would give those cards more playability if such the option existed. Dude I'm tellin' ya, a sideboard would be nothing but good for this game.

Do you agree with the points addressed in this argument, why or why not? Do you think a sideboard is something that should be considered for this game once organized play starts up or do you think that would be too cliché and such a mechanic is good for other games, wouldn't work in this one, why or why not. If the game did have a sideboard, how big do you think it should be, 5-15 cards and if the game did have a sideboard, which cards do you think would be seen a lot in certain archetypes board in exchange for which cards?

I'm interested in what the community has to say about this topic so please try and keep this topic lively and on topic .

a side board would be really good. It lets you keep though extra cards that would normally overload a deck. 5 cards would be good, 7-10 a little better. 15 may over do it right now. That second Tidus, third Pinicchio would all now have a place in every deck.

Basically I agree with everything both of the Roxases have said. It would just be nice and let you keep a few extra card as a just in case thing.

While I haven't really come across the problem of 'needin those extra cards', I do agree that a small sideboard could be useful in certain situations for particular people. I understand that some decks revolve around a certain concept (aggro or world runner? Light deck or dark deck? Hmm.. which to choose?), and I know that there are people who will, in particular, make a deck that will render their opponent's cards useless (ie: 41 cards, wall aggro, with one to no worlds, n no fun to play against). So just as easily, a sideboard could help a player boost their defenses and form a plan that would help them along against those types of decks (though much plannin would be involved beforehand). I would state that a ten card switchout would work wonders for this.

In my case, however, I plan the extra mile 'n tend to make decks with 50-55 cards, placin the said extra cards in hand for those 'just in case' reasons (why have a sideboard when I can shuffle it right in?). But I know people 'n their 'but that's wasted space' arguments, 'n I hadn't a need to hear them out because of it. When they establish'd the rules of 41-60 cards in a deck, I knew they wanted people to play around a bit 'n add or take away whatever they need'd. With that bein said, I know that a sideboard is not an absolute necessity, merely an ideal concept that would help people in tournaments when they realize their deck strategy isn't goin to get them very far against a certain deck type, especially with the new cards out 'n about.

My two cents would be simply this: unless a person is runnin a 60 card deck that isn't workin out too well, a sideboard isn't absolutely necessary. 'N if your 60 card deck isn't workin, then clearly it needs to be re-analyzed, cause you should have all that you need in 60 cards. If your 41 card deck isn't workin, then hey, add a few extra cards until it is workin. 41 cards is the minimum allowed, not the absolute. Venture out, experiment, 'n have fun. Find a middle ground that works for you, 'n run with it. Plan ahead, 'n plan for everythin.

So yeah, sideboard? I'd say no.

i think a side deck would be useful.

Choitz said:

That 40-45 card deck will almost always beat anything above 53 cards just because of the speed aspect. The reason is just because it will almost always be faster and draw into what it needs. That second Tidus isn't nesscary all time and neither is the third Pinicchio. It just opens up options that you wont need all the time but may need some of the time.

well i dont really know for sure but if this game is single elimination duels then a side board would pointless but if its 2 out of 3 then a side board might be usefull but id be against sideboards for this game to me it just doesnt fit.

This game is standard swiss.

i dunno. i like the game as is. Side boards would just let people switch from agro to WR in between rounds. Meh... i dunno. Im against it pretty much. lol... maybe its just me

Thirroxin said:

not really..all together it takes roughly 20 cards to chance a pure aggro to wr

plus you would have to have the same number which would be hard pressed for the smaller decked aggro to morph into a small wr and still run.

I think a good ground rule to establish is that you couldn't change your player card.

Roxas_Lawliet said:

Level 2 Player Cards would see more play time with that, because they are more adaptable.

Thirroxin said:

please explain...

Roxas_Lawliet said:

I can explain because that reason is the same one I've kinda felt sideboards aren't a good idea in this game.

let's say we're allowed a 10 card sideboard. It's incredibly easy for someone to build a deck around their sideboard so that those ten cards can be switched out and the deck becomes a racer. 3 Soul Eaters become 2 Oathkeepers and a Cure/Tink spell, Destiny Islands and Monstros become Disney Castles and Level 3 Worlds. Sephiroth becomes Cloud, etc. etc.

There are so few card differences between a Racer and Aggro that it wouldn't be hard at all to completely change it up between matches. The only problem would be the player card, but I think a level 2 Riku is perfect for both. So what if I don't get to go first in the Racer mirror, I'll switch to Aggro and stall with Dark next match...I think you see where I'm going with this sir.

WayToTheDawn said:

"If a certain strategy doesn't work due to a match-up problem, then wouldn't it be better for the player to have the option to put in hate cards for the particular match-up rather than trying to make the deck that beat it? Makes more sense to do the former right? and sounds a lot easier.

Without a sideboard you have a deterioration of a meta game. Think about it, without a board you have the deck and that beats everything else a consistent percentage of the time and then you have the deck that beats that deck. No one plays a deck that gets beaten by the deck and people will meta-hate the deck beater, and the cycle starts over again, constantly evolving around one deck instead of having a healthy amount of strategies. With a sideboard, it's really hard for their to be the deck in a game like this because you could sideboard hate it.

The negative responses while constructive and talk about an adaptable sideboard, wouldn't win games. How is your 10 card sideboard going to catch-up with their sideboard? I will use the WR vs. Aggro match-up to describe what I mean.

Player A plays WR with 3 pans a wendy, 2 Oathkeepers, A cloud, 7 Dark cards and about 7 worlds that would have to boarded out.

Player B plays Aggro with 10 darks (7-8 of which he would board out).

Player A has to board out 21 cards whereas player B only has to board out 7-8 (plus or minus 1-2). Player A loses game one and decides to switch strategies, (assuming this is popular in the current meta game). Player B just boards in his Aggro hate and proceeds to win game two over player A due to player A’s horrible ability to sideboard.

How it would be in any other game (and I don’t see why this one should be excluded from this list, after all, it is a TCG).

Player A loses game one, They both sideboard hate in for each other and the match is much more even and relies on correct plays and knowledge on the match-up in order to win, thus the more skilled player wins game two then if necessary game three proceeds.

So in conclusion, your argument about being able to switch strategies on a fly would only prove to fail in the end. Even with a 15 card side board there would still be cards that the WR player would have if he wanted to switch. Instead what the WR player should do is just take out his card cards and just prepare for the extra hate, 2 clouds, Pooh lvl 0, Ariels, Olympia etc. etc. it seems to make more sense to just improve the strategy you are already running and just board in things that help against the harder match-up, instead of trying to do what your opponent is because you will lose, game three they board in their Aggro hate and you lose.

Riku level 2 is not the best choice for racer, going first in that mirror is important and negating any chance of doing so means that you will more likely lose due to their turn advantage. In the Aggro match-up, that 1 attack power can really mean a lot, and can cost you a lot of resources and halt your winning strategy, while it is true that you have more HP, you are also more vulnerable to their challenges. so you are sort of stuck in either match-up. If you are running JoaT then, by Dut’s logic you should be able to win every game without a sideboard and thus my initial argument would become present within the game.

A sideboard doesn’t present the ability to instantly win games, it’s there as a tool to help enhance one's deck against a match-up the pilot and the deck have trouble with."

15 card is the usual size for a side board in a game. Say they play an agro with riku lvl 2 and soul eaters. maybe sephiroth and a few offbeat worlds and spells such as hundred acre wood and stops. Switch those for oathkeepers, swap sephy to cloud, the heartless will probly stay the same. swap the hundred acre for a deep jungle 2, throw a few dumbos in, pull the stops and add tinks or more friends if needed. altogether i think its very possible to build a deck that can swap from agro to WR with a 15 card side board.

The other problem with no sideboard is the Trump Deck. One deck to beat the current Meta which then becomes the new Meta so a new deck is created to beat it.

It becomes an endless loop to which leads people back to the same decks eventually.

Ex My Dark, Speedgro, WR decks

in theory the following would be true

Speedgro > Dark
Dark > WR
WR> Speedgro

However with a sideboard you can open. Dark Decks could sub in sneak for a racer or more friends for an aggro.
WR can add more dark for a world racer and more dark destruction againist aggro.
Speedgro is pretty much the same as WR except for the Aggro match up, that is the only time when I would technically consider Sephiroth for my speedgro deck but it also allow for more challenge options, Fairy Harp being the one in mind.

Short of that it ends with a loop that goes in circles, once Nobody decks show up the loop will just widen.

So far that we've seen, there really is no 'one undefeatable deck'. That's why they gave two ways of winnin: 13 worlds 'n 0 HP. Dependin on the strategy one plays out with the cards ('n certainly I frown upon those that scapegoat the idea with 'proxy cards'. Either you have it or you don't.), your choice makes the idea of the deck your own. Yes, everyone who wants to stop a world runner will more than likely run Jacks 'n dark cards. Yes, everyone who wants to go aggro will want to run Soul Eaters 'n Sephiroth. There's not much you can do otherwise, unless they introduce other ideas of 'win conditions'. But really, if you have a 41 card deck that isn't workin, or lost a couple rounds, wouldn't one think to examine their deck 'n figure out what went wrong?

By itself, set one really only had one ideal win condition: to world run (in my opinion). Aggro wasn't really that easy to play with, due to the lack of firepower behind it. With set two, aggro finally stood a chance, makin it plausable to play around (hence Soul Eater). Now with set three out, dark cards are more playable, 'n aren't collectin dust in binders 'n boxes. Not really a win condition, but certainly another style to toy around with 'n have fun. There is no real one sure deck that sits there and claims the top, due to playability and particular cards. About every card can be countered one way or another, which makes it fun. It's how you play the cards that makes the difference.

I still can't say I like the idea of a sideboard. To me, it feels like it defeats the whole point in deck buildin 'n strategies.

Choitz said:

Right now World Racer is still the trump deck for a few reasons.

Right now, few people have the DD (dark deck) idea for it to run correct. It's too slow and by the time it's running at full speed, your opponent is a turn or two away from winning. D Mal drop strategies don't run as well as people hoped so the DD is pretty much considered unplayable by all that haven't caught on to the other way to run it. (Thanks to Roxas_Lawliet for actually making me see the other way)

Aggro decks win only with two conditions; stalled and (magical) friend control. If you can't get a world down and get started (world-wise) for about 3-4 turns, you're about 3-4 turns behind an opponent who has had 3-4 turns to plan ahead and more than likely have either done damage that is irreversible or will be hard to reverse, especially with my next point. If a racer is controlled (this point is meant about magical friends, but also applies to regular friends, Owl, Hook, Wizard, Phil all stop vital cards, yes I’m talking about Cure, Cura, and Curaga, as well as Tinker Bell levels 0-4. Stopping their World Cards and Tinker Bells are the key to beating the racer. However, it’s easier said than done as you have to keep complete control on the field or it does not work.

Until Aggro picks up the ball and gets faster from turn one and can take more than 2HP per challenge or people learn to work a DD and it gets better cards for control, World Racer will stay dominate.

Choitz said:

It doesn't have to necessarily be "unbeatable", it just has to be able to win consistently enough over a wide span of matches for it to effect the meta game. There are two strategies in other TCG's as well but that doesn't always make them competitively viable, just another way to win. Proxying has nothing to do with the issue at hand as it would be illegal in a standard competitive environment, but if people want to proxy cards for play test purposes then there isn't anything wrong with that so long as both players agree to it, if you don't like proxying cards that fine but some people do and your point was completely off topic. You start to contradict yourself by saying that all decks with the same purpose will ultimately do the same thing thus proving my point. If one strategy works more consistently than another, why not just play that and have a better chance of winning rather than playing the decks that can lose to it. Yes if you were running a 41 card deck you could add a few cards to hate a specific match-up but what if you still consistently lose to it?! What if you were running a 45 card deck, a 50 card deck? A 60 card deck? The more cards you add you lose consistency, then you have to change your strategy in order to win. Adding in more cards won't always improve your chances of winning because you won't draw the cards that you need to win as often as you like, so you have to add more of that and hate to a match-up...so if my 60 card WR deck has trouble with just control, I should add cards, oh wait...I can't and If I take things out I lose against other WR decks and any aggro deck. you keep proving my points.

In set 2, I would actually argue that Aggro was overpowered due to amazing control aspects and speed with nothing to stop it and it's high amount of HP (if you ran Riku lvl 2, which tons of people did) or you would play Riku lvl 3 to do a bit more hate against the lvl 2 counterpart. with set 3 it's pretty balanced but control is certainly (in my opinion through the countless amount of matches I have played) the best deck around with World Rush a bit behind it. There is a anti-control deck but it usually loses to WR due to lack of Dark Cards and other things, and if you add dark cards, it's just a control deck minus a pinocchio. If certain cards counter act certain cards then you again, you will have a deck that runs the cards that counteract the most amount of things and it will consistently do better than everything else." about every card" What about Mickey? last I checked, you can't counteract that...

If you don't like a sideboard that's fine, you don't have to play with one but I don't understand how having MORE options defeats the point of deck building, wouldn't it just help you to realize that your deck will have a hard time against a particular deck and instead of making a deck to bend to your bad match-up and then proceed to lose to match-ups you previously had an easy time with, then wait...this sounds like my Player A, Player B anology.. From both a business and competitive aspect it can only bring long term balance to the game.

haven't read the other posts, don't want to. length = time = boredom

I've always liked the idea of a sideboard for this game. that is, a restricted sideboard. I ALWAYS hated it when a person would run one deck then have a 10-15 card sideboard that could turn, say, a WR style into an Aggro style. but sideboards would open up so much more for this game. I know the Villians would actually become a valuable side-strategy. it could allow a Magic heavy deck the ability to side out of an aggressive Phil/Owl lock should one arise, or a Dark heavy deck to sideboard out dead-draws for some useable cards.

I mean there are certain decks that will be incredibly built, but all it takes is ONE anti-strategy for the entire thing to become useless. it'd also free up deck space from "I gotta put this in incase" to "this flows really well with the deck" I know a lot of people that put Parasite Cages in their decks just to counter WR Alice/Phil/Owl decks

Devil, if you get the chance, read my posts and I think you will see that switching out strategies wouldn't work in the end and you would more than likely lose. And yes your points make sense and that is the way I see it too. I think a 10 card board would do nicely. Keep in mind that you would need to make room for both match-ups in your board unless you main decked complete hate for one style then boarded to win games 2 and 3 against the opposite match-up.

Yes, it's a TCG so powerful decks will be built and yes with a board there would be a more healthy meta game instead of player A plays Deck A that beats Deck C and is 40/60 with Deck B and Player B plays Deck B to win against Deck A but goes 45/55 against deck C and Player C goes home after going 0-4 playing against too many Deck A's and lost due to bad draws against the B deck it did play. Parasite Cage=Good counter so naturally they are going to run it. The game itself isn't balanced and just seems to crave for a sideboard.