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.

Does anyone think that a side board at tournaments would work in 40k?
Why or why not?

It wouldn't work because...who gets to pick their sideboard first? Someone gets an advantage, just like in any other form of list tailoring. And practically speaking, my best comparison on how I think it would go is a 40K analog to the Poison Cup scene from "The Princess Bride"
That said, there's probably a way to make it work, I just haven't personally seen any good ones.

Using a form of Double-Blind could work.
or
A Roll-Off.
or
You can not use the Units chosen during the next round.

Have a certain percentage of your points (25%, say) that are flex points. You have to make three different flex point lists (that fit legally into your main list) and prior to each round, after learning opponent (and his main army) and table, may select one of your three flex lists to be the rest of your army.

Making it so that you can't use the same flex list twice in a row (or twice at all!) optional for the hardcore.

As a Magic player just starting in 40k I say yes.

But as someone mentioned above, both sides would have to do it blind.

The reason it would work great would be just like in Magic. Adds a huge layer of strategy. Especially for units like the new Eldar ones. If an Eldar player is running Wraithknights or Jet Bikes, the other player can either take a unit that counters them, and the Eldar player can try to anticipate said counters.

1. Look over each other's A list.
2. Write down A B or C on score sheet, place face down with opponent's.
3. Both are turned face up, and you now continue the normal game protocols with those lists.

I don't see a problem with it. You simply can't see your opponents army List first, just know what sources his list is drawn from. It would really only allow you to maybe shore up holes you KNOW your army might have against certain armies. Examples: Your opponent is playing orks: your side board could fill an anti-horde roll. Your opponent is playing Dark Angels: your sideboard might have some stuff to take out terminators. Your opponent is playing Craftworld Eldar: Rage quit due to excessive D weapons.

Once again you wouldn't be able to tailor to exactly what your opponent has, but you might be able to be more prepared for what you face.

pawa24 wrote:
As a Magic player just starting in 40k I say yes.

But as someone mentioned above, both sides would have to do it blind.

The reason it would work great would be just like in Magic. Adds a huge layer of strategy. Especially for units like the new Eldar ones. If an Eldar player is running Wraithknights or Jet Bikes, the other player can either take a unit that counters them, and the Eldar player can try to anticipate said counters.

I agree with this, if sideboard are a thing both sides will have to do it blind just like MTG

Because of differing point totals it can be hard to swap things in and out piecemeal. I have heard of people using a system where you bring two list. (They have to be the same faction and stuff) You look at each others two list, and decide simultaneously which one you will be using. Probably like someone suggested above, by writing 'A' or 'B' on a scrap of paper.

I tried to run a summer long [2000 points] campaign and what I cam up with was each lest would have between 400-500 points of changes between rounds.

You could set it up the same way where each round you could only choose 1 list to work with.

Warmachine has something like this, and it really helps balance the game.

Multi list formats are a done thing - most tourneys are two or even three lists, and with divide and conquer rules, you have to play each list at least once.

Recently, for steamroller 2015, they introduced specialists (ie sideboards - you build your 50pt list from 70pts of models) and the adr (active duty roster) system whereby it's restricted to new casters and a predefined list of weaker casters who get access to a certain amount of specialists, depending on the size of the game. It's a way of balancing off weaker casters against stronger ones, as now they get access to a certain amount of tailoring.

Could it work in 40k? Yeah, it wouldn't hurt if it was implemented right.

As a long term MTG player I would say no. In MTG a sideboard is neccessary because extremes of deck construction are needed to produce something competitiive. The problem this creates is that certain cards in deck A are rendered utterly useless if deck B contains certian other cards. i.e. unless they are switched out, deck A is screwed. Therefore the sideboard is neccessary.

In 40k you can still build a competitive force that is well balanced. If you specialise too many units, you're voluntarily taking a gamble.
Sideboarding would just remove this fun and challenging element of list building. Picture the scenario:
Player A sees that player B has 2 helldrakes so he switches his Leman Russ's for Hydras.
Player B sees the hydras and switches out his helldrakes....
Pointless and only likely to cause arguements imo

EDIT: Just read the comments about blind sideboarding. It's a preferable option but I still wouldn't do it myself.

While this is a great idea it won't work very well because a lot of people want a single TAC list and god forbid something get released that makes them have to buy a new unit just to fight it.

IMO multiple lists or blind side board should have become a thing a while ago in competitive 40K. This would alleviate much of the unpleasant aspects of playing against hammer type lists while still allowing freedom to build a wide variety of armies.

Amusingly I do a reverse of this in most games I play where I take several army lists with me and let my opponent choose among them.

The main problem with sideboard-style rules in 40k is that the point costs don't line up neatly. In MTG it's very easy to have a sideboard because you swap in cards at a 1:1 ratio and never have to worry about having a deck with 59.5 cards after sideboarding. But that's not the case in a game like 40k, where unit costs aren't done in nice neat increments. You probably aren't going to have a nice even 500 points out of 1850 that you're willing to be flexible with, so maybe you have to swap out 450 points instead (the next full-unit increment being 600 points, above the 500 point limit). But then you can't really get exactly 450 points to replace those units without loading your "sideboard" stuff down with marginally-relevant upgrades, so maybe you're only adding 400 "real" points to your list. Now you're playing an 1800 point list in an 1850 game, and you didn't use your full 500 point budget. Obviously those are hypothetical numbers, but if you try to make some example lists you'll find that you spend a lot of effort trying to work around awkward point values.

A slightly less significant problem is that a 40k "match" is just a single game. In MTG you always have to play the first game of the match with no sideboard, which puts a lot of pressure on you to make sure that your deck isn't completely hopeless against any potential opponent (since automatically starting the match 0-1 is a major uphill battle). But since 40k is always single games you're always playing with your unit swaps available, and it's much easier to do things like put all of your AA units in your sideboard and only bring them in when flyers are a threat.

 Peregrine wrote:
The main problem with sideboard-style rules in 40k is that the point costs don't line up neatly. In MTG it's very easy to have a sideboard because you swap in cards at a 1:1 ratio and never have to worry about having a deck with 59.5 cards after sideboarding. But that's not the case in a game like 40k, where unit costs aren't done in nice neat increments. You probably aren't going to have a nice even 500 points out of 1850 that you're willing to be flexible with, so maybe you have to swap out 450 points instead (the next full-unit increment being 600 points, above the 500 point limit). But then you can't really get exactly 450 points to replace those units without loading your "sideboard" stuff down with marginally-relevant upgrades, so maybe you're only adding 400 "real" points to your list. Now you're playing an 1800 point list in an 1850 game, and you didn't use your full 500 point budget. Obviously those are hypothetical numbers, but if you try to make some example lists you'll find that you spend a lot of effort trying to work around awkward point values.

A slightly less significant problem is that a 40k "match" is just a single game. In MTG you always have to play the first game of the match with no sideboard, which puts a lot of pressure on you to make sure that your deck isn't completely hopeless against any potential opponent (since automatically starting the match 0-1 is a major uphill battle). But since 40k is always single games you're always playing with your unit swaps available, and it's much easier to do things like put all of your AA units in your sideboard and only bring them in when flyers are a threat.

That when I set mine up it was set at 400-500 points.
Yes some are going to make it as close to 400 so they can keep as much as possible.
There are those who will go for 500 because they want to be able to make bigger+changes.
I would love to see what would happen with 30-40 people though instead of a half dozen.

I've thought of this before and thought it would be a good idea.
The only problem is the incements. Many people would find it hard to build exact 250 point sections (or whatever) for the sideboards but even so, i like the idea and would definately give it a try.

The best way i could see it to work would be to put the army on notecards. This way, you could show up to your table with your chosen force cards already picked out and you wouldnt be able to change it up after seeing what the other guy had because you would only see a few notecards face down. then, after your both set, flip them over and grab your models.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I've thought of this before and thought it would be a good idea.
The only problem is the incements. Many people would find it hard to build exact 250 point sections (or whatever) for the sideboards but even so, i like the idea and would definately give it a try.

This is why you go 200-300 points

The best way i could see it to work would be to put the army on notecards. This way, you could show up to your table with your chosen force cards already picked out and you wouldnt be able to change it up after seeing what the other guy had because you would only see a few notecards face down. then, after your both set, flip them over and grab your models.

Yoiu should at leaast know what "Primary Detachment" you should be facing [like Space Marines or Eldar] before you choose tour Side-Board.

 Anpu42 wrote:
This is why you go 200-300 points

But that doesn't help at all with the problem. Let's say I want to replace a Basilisk in my main list with a LRBT from my sideboard. I remove the 125 point Basilisk, but I don't have enough points to add the 150 point LRBT. So I remove another Basilisk, which frees up the points for the LRBT but leaves me 100 points short. I don't have a 100-point unit in my sideboard so now I need to remove another unit from my main list to bring in something more expensive from my sideboard, and that probably won't line up either.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
This is why you go 200-300 points

But that doesn't help at all with the problem. Let's say I want to replace a Basilisk in my main list with a LRBT from my sideboard. I remove the 125 point Basilisk, but I don't have enough points to add the 150 point LRBT. So I remove another Basilisk, which frees up the points for the LRBT but leaves me 100 points short. I don't have a 100-point unit in my sideboard so now I need to remove another unit from my main list to bring in something more expensive from my sideboard, and that probably won't line up either.

You don't do it on the fly, you hav e to pre-plan the whole thing.

When we were working on the one I was stetting it up I did not think of it as a 2,000 point list, but as a 1,500+500 and worked from there.

You just make sure that the "Core" of your Army is Stand Alone and the Extra 500 is for Flexibility.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
I've thought of this before and thought it would be a good idea.
The only problem is the incements. Many people would find it hard to build exact 250 point sections (or whatever) for the sideboards but even so, i like the idea and would definately give it a try.

This is why you go 200-300 points

The best way i could see it to work would be to put the army on notecards. This way, you could show up to your table with your chosen force cards already picked out and you wouldnt be able to change it up after seeing what the other guy had because you would only see a few notecards face down. then, after your both set, flip them over and grab your models.

Yoiu should at leaast know what "Primary Detachment" you should be facing [like Space Marines or Eldar] before you choose tour Side-Board.

Sorry, I meantthat you would know the primary detatchment. Just not the sideboard options. My bad.
And yes, preplanning is key for this. I've done it on larks for casual games and found that you can set up combos and such to make the points even whether its a tank and infantry or just a bigger tank or minus a tank and add more troops or minus a tank to add in a flyer. You have to think ahead and different sideboard options can indeed mean different playstyles and strategies.

If sideboarding is to be an option, I believe the solution to the insufficient / leftover points problemis to write up your variants of your army list with sideboarded units switched in. It's not necessarily going to completely avoid point wastage, but certainly seems preferable to both players than trying to juggle points before set-up and delaying the game.

That was a point I made. It can be problomatic in that it could be difficult to juggle the points even with planning. Of course, if thats an issue your arent willing to follow, there is nothing to stop you from just not using a sideboard. Show up with your primary detatchment card and a few blank cards. Put them on the table and watch them wonder till you flip them over. It couldgive you an edge over a player who was not able to maximize their power with their sideboard.
There are pros and cons for using and not using. I think a tourney that allowed the option could be fun. Just a matter of setting reasonable limits on the sideboard....
maybe a total of 500 points total and divide it up how you like. For example 200 point bundles and a 100 point bundle or an all or nothing single 500 point bundle? I dont know.

I think the best way to set it up is to keep simple. One we set up for a 2,000 set of games.
The primary would be a 1,500 point Army + 3x 500 point "Side-Boards".
The only real restrictions were:
1] You cold ony use each Side Board Once.
2] When added the Side-Board to your Primary Army it still must conform to all the FOC Rules. (this would not be an issue if you ran Unbound)
3] The Side-Board could not contain the same Units as any other Side Boards.
4] You had to have all of the models available for all of the Side-Boards.
5] Once you know who your opponent was you chose your Side Board
We did plan to finish it all up with a 3k APPOC like game using all of the Side-Boards after we were all done.

I think the points values would make swapping stuff in and out would make it a nightmare.

Although, as others have mentioned, having 2 or 3 prepared lists and swapping between then between matches could be fun, and involve less headaches.

"So you're playing Tyranids ? List number 2 it is."

Personally, I don't think that having a "sideboard" of units is a good idea for 40k. As others have pointed out, the points increments would be a nightmare for many armies, as not all armies have the same sort of point scaling. This is to say nothing of units that are undercosted.

Having multiple lists a la Warmahordes but from the same faction is another idea, but also has problems. How does one choose the list for each opponent? If it's random or chance-based, then that can negate the reason for bringing the alternate list. It does a player no favors if their tailored list goes against a list they didn't expect to see. It's just adding another unnecessary layer onto the current meta.

Competitive 40k has always been a game of rock, scissors, glue, frog. There's a reason the tournament scene concentrates on DeathStar lists; it's because they can deal with pretty much anything.

In the end, it's mission design that evens armies out at the competitive level.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Personally, I don't think that having a "sideboard" of units is a good idea for 40k. As others have pointed out, the points increments would be a nightmare for many armies, as not all armies have the same sort of point scaling. This is to say nothing of units that are undercosted.

Having multiple lists a la Warmahordes but from the same faction is another idea, but also has problems. How does one choose the list for each opponent? If it's random or chance-based, then that can negate the reason for bringing the alternate list. It does a player no favors if their tailored list goes against a list they didn't expect to see. It's just adding another unnecessary layer onto the current meta.

Competitive 40k has always been a game of rock, scissors, glue, frog. There's a reason the tournament scene concentrates on DeathStar lists; it's because they can deal with pretty much anything.

In the end, it's mission design that evens armies out at the competitive level.

That is one one the reasons why my group looked at a varible [400-500] point "Side-Board" between list, but is not hard to to create a 1,500 point list and a 500 point list.

As far as "Death-Stars" go, they easily fit withing the 1,500 point part of the list. So this will not save people from them.