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.

In M:tG, tournaments consist of three to around twenty rounds (though only the very largest really go above six or eight), each of which is best two-out-of-three games. In the first game of each match, you are required to use the same list, but you have a number of cards available to switch in and out for games two and, if appropriate, three. This allows for you to remove the dead weight from your deck, put in cards which are uniquely suited to beating your opponent, and so forth, and makes the game (in my opinion) more interesting than it would be if you had to use the same deck for every game.

Clearly, this is impractical for Warhammer or 40K - partly because it's impossible in practice to play the same opponent multiple times and still have time to play multiple opponents, partly because it would be very difficult to quickly and effectively rejig lists at short notice.

However, I think there's a way around this - a way to force players to have the same core to their army for every game, but to have a bit of flexibility when facing different types of opponent.

What I'm thinking is (taking 40K for simplicity, though the concept extends to Fantasy easily enough) a 1500 point tournament, where each player brings along the same 1200 point core to the army, but can bring three separate 300 point sideboards.

Before each game, each player can look over their opponents' core list, and decide which of their three sideboards to bring to the fight.

In order to prevent possible shenanigans, I've come up with a few rules regarding how the sideboards can be composed:

- The base 1200 point list must be a legal list in its own right (ie it must contain 1 HQ and 2 Troops, and Allies - if taken - must have 1 HQ and 1 Troops)
- All three possible 1500 point lists must be legal
- The sideboards can only comprise entire units - so you can't spend five points in a sideboard on "Marine Sergeant 1 gets Meltabombs"
- No unit choices may be duplicated between sideboards. Similar, though different, choices may be taken as long as all models are fully WYSIWYG and the choice in one sideboard can easily be distinguished from the choice in another. So taking a Daemon Prince in two sideboards with different Mastery levels is not OK, but taking Devastators in two sideboards, one unit with lascannons and the other with heavy bolters, is just fine.
- Sideboards are not compulsory.

How would you all feel about such a tournament? What would you consider the weak points, and do you have ideas for how it can be improved?

Not really. This will bog down play even more than normal.

No thanks. Tournament play is already slow enough.

I'd love it. So I can be the neckbeard kronk is talking about ;p. serious though I think it'd be cool and different than what I'm used to so I'd be down for the challenge.

 kronk wrote:
No thanks. Tournament play is already slow enough without waiting on the next neck beard to list-tailor each game.

That's the reason why you have just three sideboards, and can only choose the one you want, instead of being able to actually alter things too much.

Essentially, it's a single choice between three. I can't see how it could add more than maybe five minutes (tops) to each round.

And if it's taking you 5 minutes to choose a sideboard you probably don't know what your doing anyways so it's gonna be slow. Ideally you'd create a sideboard to deal with each of the 3 "meta lists". Flyer heavy, horde heavy, and assault lists. With some sublisting of drop pods, terminator heavy, heavy mech.

How about three lists and pick the one you want each round? (Sorry about the neckbeard comment, earlier.)

How do you handle this, though?

Player A: Hi, I'm playing Eldar.
Player B: Hi, I'm playing Orks.
Player A: Then I'm using this list.
Player B: Then I'm using this list.
Player A: Wait, I changed my mind. I want this list.
Player B: Then I'm using this list, instead.
Player A: Oh, then I want this list...


Or

Player A: Hi, I'm playing Eldar. What list are you taking?
Player B: Hi, I'm playing Orks. What list are YOU taking?
Player A: I asked you first.
Player B: So what?
Player A: Sew buttons. Now show me your list!
Player B: Nuh uh. You first!
Player A: I'm telling!
Player B: Your mom is fat!

 kronk wrote:
How about three lists and pick the one you want each round? (Sorry about the neckbeard comment, earlier.)

How do you handle this, though?

Player A: Hi, I'm playing Eldar.
Player B: Hi, I'm playing Orks.
Player A: Then I'm using this list.
Player B: Then I'm using this list.
Player A: Wait, I changed my mind. I want this list.
Player B: Then I'm using this list, instead.
Player A: Oh, then I want this list...

Because it actually goes like this:

Player A: Hi, I'm playing Eldar. What are you taking?
Player B: Hi, I've got Orks. Here's my core 1200 list.
Player A: Cool. Here's mine.
~browse~
Player B: OK, I've chosen sideboard B.
Player A: I've gone with sideboard A.
Player B: Cool. WAAAGH! *chops the space elf's head off*

I think there was some confusion in how I set it out. Essentially, you are bringing three lists; it's just that all three have to have the same 1200 point basis. You choose which of the three you want after seeing your opponent's basis.

It could just be that you bring a particular board for each codex, but I think you should be able to differentiate between mech-vet Guard and platoon horde Guard.

I have played in tourneys with sideboards. They can work.

One of the formats we used to do was:
1500pt core army
2 sideboards of totally self-contained 250pt models.

Game 1: 1500pt Army
Game 2: 1500pt Army with sideboard of your choice
Game 3: 1500pt Army with the sideboard you DIDN'T use
Game 4: 1500pt army with both sideboards

I am not sure it makes things more competative, but it does shake things up a bit and changes some plans. I think it is a better method than 'wacky missions' which sometimes are used to make things 'different'.

Also it allows people to mitigate risk... They can take balanced sideboards, they can take sideboards explicit for 'big guns dont tire' and hope they can monopolize on that. They can take two specialized sideboards and hope they can face one anti troop and one anti tank and successfully match them up.

I don't feel adding sideboards slows down the game... but it may not be for everyone. I have enjoyed it myself.

That sounds interesting, nkelsch.

Malifaux and Warmachine already do it, and they do it pretty well. Many Malifaux tournaments say okay we have a 35 point list that you can build using up to 50 points of models, and Malifaux has a crew creation section to it's pre-game setup. Generally in tournaments you know the mission and the faction you're facing, but you don't know the master you're facing or what is in his list.

An ideal way would be for players to submit their lists and sideboards to TOs, and it would go something like this.

TO: First mission is Purge the Alien (that's killpoints right?), and Alf you're playing Kronk's Orks first round. At the same time Kronk learns I'm playing Dark Angels.

So now I spend the pre-game setup deciding if I use my sideboard or not based on what I know of Orks (will I face a battlewagon rush, kan wall, green tide?).

When we meet at the table, we exchange lists (with our chosen sideboards in there), and then it goes something like this:

Kronk: I'm playing Green Tide Orks
Alf: Feth me! I was expecting Kan walls or battlewagons. Oh well, I've got Death Wing with lots of destroyer squads and lascannons.

So you really build a balanced list and then w/e the sideboard is either makes you better against infantry (say more flamers) or better against fliers, etc...

I don't think it would be too hard to implement.

We've been talking about this a lot lately, too.

A core list of a certain amount of points, and then 2 sideboard lists.

Each player sees their opponent's core list and then chooses their sidebar list to add to their core.

I think it would really help to mitigate bad match-ups. They do it in MtG, Malifaux and Warmahordes.

I don't think it would take more than a few seconds, honestly.

I like the "see opponent's core list, then choose sideboard" option. I think 1500 point core + two 250 point sideboards (choose one) would be a great way to run an event, and I think it would especially help for newer players who have trouble making completely balanced lists in the modern environment.

 Kingsley wrote:
I think 1500 point core + two 250 point sideboards (choose one) would be a great way to run an event,

You're convincing me. That sounds simple enough.

The thing is, self-contained sideboards for most armies is max 1 or 2 units. I would probably do something like :

Sideboard 1: ADL + Lootas
Sideboard 2: 2 Dakkajets

Basically that gives me the option of going defensive anti air with ground-base shooty support, but if my opponent seems to lack anti-air, i can rush with dakkajets. I find my Dakkajets get chewed up way to fast when someone is doing a full airforce and can do 3+ flyers, but they do well when evenly matched or facing minimal anti-air.

Other options would be taking something like:
Sideboard 1: 3MANZ in a Cheapwagon
Sideboard 2: as many Kannon big gunz I can cram into 250 pts

Basically the MANZ In A Cheapwagon becomes a deffrollin, boarding planking, face smashing throwaway unit which will sow as much destruction before they fizzle out, The Big Gunz is a sit back and shoot alternative. Both primarily are for responding to specific needs in different ways (Chop the Dakka, Dakka the Choppa)

I am sure it can be exploited and I am sure some armies lend themselves better to sideboard spamming or something, but hey... it is different and new and lets people make decisions.

Yeah, that's the general idea. We were thinking like, 500 points or so. That gives you some options and let's you adjust.

The biggest issue we've seen is that some units add up to just over 500 (or whatever points limit) etc. Outside of having weird point breaks, it makes the player significantly more adaptable and can REALLY help bad match-ups. For example, as a Nid player I know I get owned by Venom Spam. My sideboard could swap out Swarmy for another Flyrant, etc. It also helps for missions. You can swap out more or less troops for certain missions, etc.

At the least, I think it bears testing out. You really wouldn't need much more painted, either.

 kronk wrote:
No thanks. Tournament play is already slow enough.

Huh? Tournament play tends to be much faster than normal play due to time constraints.

We did a tournament a couple of years ago that had sideboards.

1500 Core
500 Sideboard A
500 Sideboard B

When you met your opponent you shared your Core lists. Then, based upon what you saw from each other, you picked one of your two Sideboards, revealing them at the same time to each other.

I thought it was a lot of fun. The Core list had to be legal on it's own, as did the Sideboards. No bulking up units or adding Dedicated Transports to Core squads.

Now will Allies, I can only see this being more interesting and I'd like to do it again.

Hordes tournaments do this all the time.
You take (up to) 2 lists, each has to have a different caster.
When you meet your opponent you can see both of their lists.
After looking at your opponent's lists, you take note of which list you want to take and then simultaneously reveal this to your opponent.
This takes all of 1 minute...

With 40k the sideboard would need to be large enough to have some real impact on your list - 250 would be too small, 500 more usable.

The main issue I think is that he traditional sideboards from other games have set values.

However, 40k has 4 digits in army creation, where both MTG and Warmachine/hordes have 2. A set number of cards or points in war/hor is easier to deal with since the numbers are smaller, so is the variance in cost.

For example, getting exactly 1000 points for core and two 500 sideboards might be a pain. So instead of having 2 places where you can waste points (core 997/1000 and sideboard 497/500) you could just make a minimum size for the core, and maximum total.

For example, 2 sideboards, 1000 minimum core, max total 1500. That would allow someone to have a slightly larger core, but never exceed 1500.

I've been wanting to do something like this for ages. I'd also suggest considering perhaps Force Org slots incorporated into the sideboard as well, perhaps a maximum of one choice from each slot to prevent them having three different sideboard spams to choose from. Main thing IMO would be to force players who play a one trick pony deck to put that pony out in the open for everyone to see and counter.

I also second the variable core/sideboard size for the reasons Dracos posted above.

Adepticon this year ran a 1000 point mini tournament this year with a 250 point sideboard. It was called the "Warzone" Tournament and mostly revolved around wacky terrain rules including some missions inside using zone mortalis rules.

The sideboard was crucial as every player took an option that would work with zone mortalis (no tanks or flyers) and one for outdoor missions.

The sideboard rule went like this: You come with one 1,000 point army list and one set of units costing up to 250 points as your sideboard. You must designate at least as many points of units in your main list to be the swap with your side board.

So, for example you could take a 200 point sideboard and designate 205 points of your main army to swap out with it.

Players would exchange lists (including sideboards) at the start of the game and then would declare whether they were using their sideboard. None of my games had any issues with folks wanting to take back their choice. Only added 5 minutes and added a really neat mechanic to the tournament.

Interesting idea. I would not mind. In 2000 point games, I have developed an ally group of 600 points to accompany my IG. So far, I ha BA, GK, and orks. Working on Eldar now. I would not mind as seeing my allies are plug and play depending on the game.

This obviously isn't a new idea, per se, even for Warhammer 40k/Fantasy.

Back in the olden days when GW used to run their own GTs, there was at least one year in the US where your army was 1,500 points but then you had an additional 250 points (or something like that) to be used in certain missions. This naturally isn't exactly the same concept you're describing, but variations of that concept have been used since miniature gaming tournaments began.

While no 'major' GW tournament (to my knowledge) currently uses sideboards in their 'big' premiere events, as has been mentioned already in this thread, many of the smaller tournaments at places like Adepticon have used sideboards, from the Gladiator the last couple years, to the Warzone tournament previously discussed.

And although I can't name them offhand, I know many other smaller events (including local RTTs in the past) have used similar concepts without issue.


So can it work? Absolutely. Is it a good thing? Yes and no. While it can help even out the rock-paper-scissor matchup issue for games like 40k where the result of the game can be heavily determined simply by army composition between the two opponents, it also can help to ENABLE players to maximize rock-paper-scissor matchup issues in some cases.

Or in other words, quality players who understand the game and have a good codex filled with quality units that can perform different types of tasks can use the sideboard to really prevent themselves from getting stuck in a terrible matchup, provided of course they have the time and/or energy to paint all those extra sideboard units. But players who don't fully grasp the game that well or that don't really grasp which units need to be taken to avoid bad matchups (or simply don't have the time or energy to get all that extra stuff painted) can end up now getting stuck in really, really bad matchups game after game as their opponents are able to pick the absolute best stuff to mismatch against them.

So personally, I don't look at it as being a superior system necessarily, but rather just a 'different' system then bringing a single fixed list, one that has its own positives and negatives.


But the REAL big negative to the system is simply that it puts a further barrier of entry to getting people to play in your tournament. Because people DO have to spend the money to buy all those sideboard units and they DO have to paint them all (if you have a painting requirement), which will drive some players away who don't have enough stuff purchased and painted to field the sideboard they want.

But if you do go down this road, I highly suggest you stay away from more than two choices max...i.e. a 'main' list and then a portion of that which can be swapped out for a sideboard. Trying to get players to paint up multiple sideboards is just going to be too taxing for a lot of players.

I agree that 2 choices only would be smart... anything more than that and it starts to become a little clunky!

But I like the idea, it works well in warmachine having 2 lists, and I think sideboards is a cool way to do something similar for 40k in some events.

 Dakkamite wrote:
I've been wanting to do something like this for ages. I'd also suggest considering perhaps Force Org slots incorporated into the sideboard as well, perhaps a maximum of one choice from each slot to prevent them having three different sideboard spams to choose from. Main thing IMO would be to force players who play a one trick pony deck to put that pony out in the open for everyone to see and counter.

I also second the variable core/sideboard size for the reasons Dracos posted above.

I agree with Dakkamite...the world is ending.

One per slot is a great idea, and I have seen the general concept of sidebar tournaments work VERY well.

I know I would certainly play in such a tournament.

The sideboard concept is a HUGE part of the metagame in Magic the Gathering. The sideboard is where you put answers to the rock/paper/scissors matchups and the ideal card set is constantly changing based on what is popular at the moment. The nice thing about Magic is that it is very easy to do 1-for-1 swaps. In 40k it is a lot harder to line up a specific amount of points exactly (especially for some books).

That said, I think as long as you keep it relatively small, it would be a great addition. Especially for some rock/paper/scissors elements like flyers and anti-flyer.

We will have to give this a go in an RTT level event. I have always really liked the idea, but you have to try it out in practice to really see how it works out.

Hmm, maybe we could do a video battle report of it? That would provide some good data for everyone.

We had 1500 + 2 250's at the beginning of 5th for a few of the local Cons here in denver. TBH it helps and hinders. Its great for additional options you cant just decide on. On the same token like the example above you might take a bit longer deciding to go up against list a only to have it change to list b.

Other thing is bragging rights, I'd rather take a single list and win with it vs Win because my sideboard is tooled out to do everything with specific tricks. Though no one is forcing you to use the 2nd sideboard selection so eh

I would love a 1500+500 pt event. Bring a 1500 pt list with two 500 pt sideboards, look at eachother's primary, decide your sideboard, play it up. Once you exchange your sideboard lists, there's no going back.