Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I think most serious tourney players design their list to the standard number of points. Looks like there is suddenly no longer standard. I prefer no sideboard but I am not opposed to it either Somn.

G

Pretty much what i was going to write. if a tournament doesnt run a sideboard, ok. if it does, ok.

That sounds like Tony Romo's comment from a few years ago... something like "If we win, OK. If we lose, OK" after taking a vacation before a big game... not necessarily what you want to hear from your franchise quarterback, or from someone invested in organizing a tournament and running it well!

Warmaster wrote:...some of the older armies, cough tau, could use a bit of help.

Heavily meched up Tau, cough, do darned aweseomely well on the local scene. Marker lights and that >12" Tau vehicles always getting a cover save help from what we've all seen.

I like the idea of sideboards, but unlike magic, sideboards for 40k could break the game. Some armys are counter other ones anyway, and honestly, being able to swap out your plasma guns for flamers everytime you face orcs would make it less interesting... I vote no, its a dumb idea. It works for card games because you need certain cards vs certain decks. In 40k it would just break the game and make lists a whole lot less fun.

Zid wrote:...being able to swap out your plasma guns for flamers everytime you face orcs would make it less interesting... I vote no, its a dumb idea... In 40k it would just break the game and make lists a whole lot less fun.

Sideboards sounds little different than the guys at the LGS who ask what army you're playing when you walk in. They then field their MEQ or Horde killer list as appropriate when playing you.

privateer4hire wrote:

Zid wrote:...being able to swap out your plasma guns for flamers everytime you face orcs would make it less interesting... I vote no, its a dumb idea... In 40k it would just break the game and make lists a whole lot less fun.

Sideboards sounds little different than the guys at the LGS who ask what army you're playing when you walk in. They then field their MEQ or Horde killer list as appropriate when playing you.

The difference is that you can do the same to them. Of course if I was a TO using sideboards it would only consist of maybe 10-20% of the list. You couldn't just stuff 3 Collossus in the sideboard and call it a day.

The intent is to increase the number of tournament viable units and strategies, not to promote hate units.

I think this works well in PP games, where you have two lists and can swap them in and out. So for my Trolls I have my Facebeating list and my Aha Not So Tricksy Now list.

In 40K and Fantasy, you're given way more options in list building, and especially some armies have massive options over others. So I don't think it would work as well.

Somnicide wrote:So, what are your thoughts on the idea?

Sideboards are better left to M:TG players.

I voted no, but i think it would be ok if the 'sideboard' was only to the extent of allowing war gear on units already brought to the fight to be changed..

This is the army i brought, this is whats coming at us (race knowledge only! no army compositions), quick boys run to the armory! other than that i think it would be lame if you could change your armies composition right before a fight.

I think the choices should be entirely made before you even see the opposing enemies army. otherwise its just a crutch for people who cant use that thing between their ears.

Redbeard wrote:I voted no. I like the idea in theory, but I believe that, in practice, it would give the more flexible codexes too much of an advantage.

Marines, for example, can make some very simple tradeouts that make them extremely effective versus just about anyone else. If they know what they're facing, they've just got a huge number of choices available to them. Each tactical squad can choose between any number of weapons, as needed. Drop pods could be replaced with rhinos for a zero-point exchange. Predators and Land Speeders (and even Land Raiders) can select weapons that give them better game versus hordes or mech, versus long-range or short-range opponents. A marine army that is geared to face a horde army can change very easily to cope with a multiple land-raider force. They can run a Librarian against psychic opponents, but trade it out for a chaplain against opponents with no psychic powers.

Orks, on the other hand, have two weapon options in most cases (rokkits or big shootas). They don't have any good options if they run into a multiple land raider opponent. They have no psychic defense available, so they can't sideboard one against a psychic-heavy army.

I think this would end up hurting tournaments more than helping. As it is, if you want a psychic defense, you need to spend those points, even if you're not playing against a psyker. I think this adds a degree of balance to those other codexes that don't even have the option.

But if the sideboard rules are written properly, what you've postulated as problems does not exist. As I posted earlier, the way I do it (and GW did it in the GTs), no upgrading units or swapping equipment in existing units. So it doesn't matter that Marines have 500 different weapons options, because all they're allowed to do in the sideboard is add a completely new unit. No swapping drop pods for rhinos, no switching heavy bolters for lascannons, none of that.
Seems a lot of people are misreading "sideboard" as re-write my list. That not what it is. So I'll try to explain ti again.

Let's say that I'm running a tourney with a 1500 core and 2 x 250 point sideboards.
1. The entire 2000 points must be a legal force org chart. In addition, the core and either sideboard must make a legal force org chart.
2. Sideboards may not be used to make changes to or add equipment to units existing in either the core or the other sideboard. So no switrching weapons within a squad, no adding/changing equipment on a character or vehicles. Exception: Force org slots that can hold multiple units may add additional units, but can make no changes/additions to existing units. So you can add a transport to a unit that doesn't have one or add an Infantry squad to an IG platoon.

See the difference between this and what you're saying?

Oh, and my IG army ALWAYS include a DH Inquisitor Lord with Hood and Mystics, and in sideboard tournies, it's part of the core.

you can add a transport to a unit that doesn't have one or add an Infantry squad to an IG platoon.

Perfect.

I start with 1500 pts of footy Marines, no Transports.

My first 250 pts is all Drop Pods

My second 250 pts all Rhinos

Depending on my opponent, I can mech up to Pod in or bunker down.

Like Rumsfield said, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want."

JohnHwangDD wrote:

you can add a transport to a unit that doesn't have one or add an Infantry squad to an IG platoon.

Perfect.

I start with 1500 pts of footy Marines, no Transports.

My first 250 pts is all Drop Pods

My second 250 pts all Rhinos

Depending on my opponent, I can mech up to Pod in or bunker down.

Yeah, not at all what I was suggesting. You could add one extra full squad with a rhino or a drop pod as your sideboard though.

Breotan wrote:Like Rumsfield said, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want."

What he said. Unit choice and list construction is part of the game. I also agree with a previous poster that this sideboard idea benefits certain armies more than others... and IMHO those armies are the ones that already have a leg up.

I think it would have the opposite effect. I think that we would see a bunch of armies we don't now because they are totally screwed by some matchups. Right now people don't bring entire armies because to face an unfavorable matchup means that they autolose unless they spend a lot of points focusing on that matchup which then leaves them weak to other armies.

Space Marines wouldn't be much different because they are already an all-comers type of army.

We would see a lot more eldar - they are the masters at gearing toward a specific foe. Necrons might prefer some long range shooting in the form of heavy destroyers vs. a heavy mech army, whereas some other choices are better against other stuff.

Tau would also benefit greatly as you would have the option to swap out something anti mech for something anti infantry - or even mobility based.

I think that people would use more varied lists as well and we wouldn't see as many cookie cutter armies.

After a month or so, I think we'd see new cookie cutter lists that include sideboards.

Eldar and other specialist armies will do somewhat better, but this doesn' hamper any good army as far as I can tell.

The Green Git wrote:

Breotan wrote:Like Rumsfield said, "You go to war with the army you have not the army you want."

What he said. Unit choice and list construction is part of the game. I also agree with a previous poster that this sideboard idea benefits certain armies more than others... and IMHO those armies are the ones that already have a leg up.

Except this is a game and I can actually go down to my FLGS and get exactly the army I want (or at least the internet).

Sideboards would result in cookie cutter sideboards eventually (which really is no different than the current cookie cutter issue with lists), but I still think it would increase the overall pool of viable units offering more options for dynamic list building.

And yeah there would need to be a rule-set in place to prevent exploitation. You couldn't just shove dedicated transports in a sideboard (that breaks normal FO rules anyway).

I'd set up the rules as follows:

The core list must have minimum 1 HQ and 2 Troops.

Players must have a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2 sideboards.

Each sideboard cannot break FO rules when each is added to the core.

Units in the sideboards much be full legal units.

The generals must declare which sideboard they will be using on deployment.

The selected sideboard is immediately placed in reserve.

Note that unlike MTG there is no "swapping" of units here. You simply have some units arrive from reserve. The sideboard does not mean you remove units from the core list and replace them with a different unit.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

you can add a transport to a unit that doesn't have one or add an Infantry squad to an IG platoon.

Perfect.

I start with 1500 pts of footy Marines, no Transports.

My first 250 pts is all Drop Pods

My second 250 pts all Rhinos

Depending on my opponent, I can mech up to Pod in or bunker down.

So long as those rhinos/drop pods do not belong to the same unit. If they do, it's not a legal force org chart. So half could drop in or half could ride. The other half would be walking. Remember, the entire 2000 points has to be a single legal force org, as you just might have to field the entire thing at once.

I like side boards. To me its more realistic. I play space marines( ULTRAMAR!!) and to me it would be tactically unsound if they didnt adjust a little to what they were facing. But if they dont have them it doesnt bother me i just like them.

It is really interesting that at the time of this post the for and against are both at 37 votes a piece.

A sideboard? no, I don't like the idea.

Now, if there were a tournament that said "Bring 3000 points, make a 2000 point list for each game before each battle, and keep track of which units die, as you won't get them back throughout the campaign ect.ect." that would be cool. It would force people to be more strategic rather than tactical.

Being able to suddenly swap your meltagunners for flamethrowers when facing an IG blob isn't exactly fair.

So i guess we can decide it doesnt really matter lol. I still like em

starbomber109 wrote:A sideboard? no, I don't like the idea.

Now, if there were a tournament that said "Bring 3000 points, make a 2000 point list for each game before each battle, and keep track of which units die, as you won't get them back throughout the campaign ect.ect." that would be cool. It would force people to be more strategic rather than tactical.

Being able to suddenly swap your meltagunners for flamethrowers when facing an IG blob isn't exactly fair.

Did you read the thread? That isn't what we are talking about. Full units only.

I just read the thread, I'm a moron, carry on without me, I suck at posting ideas....

Edit2: I guess I'm just of the crowd that I think it could be abused...but, it might be a good idea. Maybe there'd be some limits, like no HQs in your sideboard.

Oh, I won't deny that it can indeed be 'abused'. At one of the GW GTs that had it, I was fielding and all-scout Space Marine army. So of course, my opponents pulled out the "units with heavy bolters" sideboards against me. I was quite pleased with my 2-3-1 (W-L-D) finish. Course, at the other one where I fielded my IG, I did quite a bit better..........................5-0-1.

A sideboard would definately keep someone from trying to 'abuse' the metagame though. But it would also give players a chance to try things they don't normally try. Some units are called "Situational" well, now you can use them in the situation that calls for them.

....dang, now I'm sorry I voted no. Edit: I change my mind way to easy :/ It'd be hard to really 'abuse' it, unless you had a captain on a bike in your sideboard, and your army was 3 tactical squads and 3 bike squads, add the captain and your entire army changes.

Running tourneys is a lot of work. While sounding like a good idea, I think it would slow down the tournament and open up too many ways to "fudge" lists. You would have to police all of the lists during the sideboard to make sure there were no "oh I didn't now I couldn't do that, wink-wink, nudge-nudge" responses.

don_mondo wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

you can add a transport to a unit that doesn't have one or add an Infantry squad to an IG platoon.

Perfect.

I start with 1500 pts of footy Marines, no Transports.

My first 250 pts is all Drop Pods

My second 250 pts all Rhinos

Depending on my opponent, I can mech up to Pod in or bunker down.

So long as those rhinos/drop pods do not belong to the same unit. If they do, it's not a legal force org chart. So half could drop in or half could ride. The other half would be walking. Remember, the entire 2000 points has to be a single legal force org, as you just might have to field the entire thing at once.

OK, then it's 250 pts of Pods and 250 pts of Devastators.

pods aren't a unit choice. Are you saying a 250 point dev squad in a drop pod? because unless you are, you completely missed the point and discussion of the thread.

Don said I can add Transports, so that's what I did.

If you have a different set of restrictions in mind, too bad.