Tournaments need to start using a sideboard for 40k 6th Edition.

[Asymmetric]

Faced with a new edition, many tournament organisers will be looking at the new rules and wondering how best to get the most out of the system in place for 6th. Should allies be allowed? Should fortifications? How should terrain be generated? What points limit to play at? Should we use comp scores? These are the questions that will be plaguing them. However, there is one way to give the power to players to find there own solutions to most problems that potentially could occur in 6th edition and that is by introducing a sideboard into 40k.

The Sideboard.

The concept of a sideboard should be familiar with any Magic the gathering players. Essentially in Magic you have your 60 card magic deck and to all intents and purposes this is you army list. Magic is a diverse game though with a huge possibility of match-ups many of which may be unfavourable to you. For instance if you are playing a mill deck and your opponent is playing a burn deck then your probably going to lose before you've even played any cards because it is usually such an effective counter. So in an effort to stop one-sided curbstomps from occuring magic tournaments started allowing players to have a smaller collection of cards (15-20) they could place in a "sideboard". A player could choose any 60 cards before the match from a now extended pool of 75 to 80 cards, allowing the decks much greater flexibility in covering up potentially bad match-ups by taking out inefficient options and adding in more effective ones for that specific match.

Why 40K 6th needs this.

40k 6th edition opens the doorway to more extreme army lists that will be very difficult to play against unless you have a prepared list to fight back against them. Zooming fliers are hard for many lists to fight against due to there immunities to assault and blasts combined with the rarity of skyfire weapons, however including many of the counters to fliers in your list could leave you glaringly weak in other match-ups. Likewise, you can now take many potent combinations of allies that require highly specific thought out ways of fighting against (like Fateweaver in Chaos marine lists). Furthermore, at 2k+ you get double force organisation slots now, allowing for players to field truly extreme army lists with 6 heavy support choices or 250+ scoring Orks.

In essence in an all comers format, the game risks falling into a rock paper scissors match-up at the army list creation stage before any dice have even been rolled or decisions by the player have been taken.

Imhotekh

Nightscythe
- 5xWarriors
- Chronotek

Nightscythe
- 5xWarriors
- Storm Tek, voltaic staff

Nightscythe
- 5xWarriors

Nightscythe
- 5xWarriors

Doomscythe

Doomscythe

Doomscythe

1,500 points

A tough list to face if your not highly prepared for it

Placing the Sideboard into 40k

In a standard 1,500 point tournament format let players choose there 1,500 points list as usual but then also allow them to select an additional 500 points. This "500" is your sideboard and can be comprised of any 500 points worth of new units or upgrades/different weapon options to existing units.

10-15 minutes before the start of any game the players swap army lists showing the main 1,500 point list and the 500 point sideboard. Players then have that time to make any changes to there list (in secret) they would like to make after seeing there opponents lists. Once they are ready, they remove the 500 points of units they have decided to not field and begin the game. In essence, your bringing a 2,000 point list and selecting 1,500 points worth of stuff depending on what you think your opponent is fielding. Too much of 40k is won or lost around army list selection and trying too cover to many bases at once. 6th edition is only going to compound this problem by having even harder lists to prepare counters for.

With a sideboard you can make profound players choices before the game that will make for closer better balanced games.

- Facing all fliers? Lucky you brought those allied hydras in your sideboard, swap your close combat troops for them.

- Facing all landraiders? Lucky you brought those melta gun upgrades in your sideboard, swap your autocannon for them.

- Facing a horde of Orks? Lucky you have some whirlwinds on the side to replace your predator annihilators.

- Facing an entrenched guard infantry batte line with an aegis? Lucky you have those assault troops you can swap in for your anti-tank.


Lets make 40k less about trying to make the most extreme gimmick army possible, and more about your actual battlefield decisions.



TLDR

Make tournament formats 1,500 points with an optional 500 points worth of potential changes after you have seen your opponents list. This reduces the extreme variance in bad match-ups we can see in 40k, eliminating much of the luck factor in who you are drawn against.

[Lord Inquisitor]

The problem: all units are not pointed equally.

In magic, each card is an equal 1/60th of the "army". You can then switch out cards easily. With 40k, units are not typically nice round numbers that you can make 500 point chunks to swap in and out.

A better option might be to make a 1000 point core army and two or more 500 point "support armies", possibly using allies. You can then select which 500 point force to use.

[Charax]

this is basically how I'm going to construct my army, with a 1500pt core, and a few 500pt allied blocks, to give me some modelling/gameplay variety.

As we all know (or we should all know, I've been telling people for about a decade now) tournaments can make their own rules. they can ban red, or make Land Raiders cost 400pts, or let you take 6 Elites choices.

Faced with 6th edition, and your idea, you know what I think most tournaments will do?
"No allies, Single force org chart"
Simpler for them, easy to understand, and eases the transition from 5th to 6th. Does it suck for people who have allies as a core part of their army? Yep, but if they go with your idea they'll have to deal with tons of questions and complaints and hypotheticals on top of the already quite work-intensive task of running a tourney.

[prowla]

The problem: all units are not pointed equally.
In magic, each card is an equal 1/60th of the "army". You can then switch out cards easily. With 40k, units are not typically nice round numbers that you can make 500 point chunks to swap in and out.

You have 20 extra cards to choose from, not a single block of 20 to swap.. In 40k, we have points just for that, to make a nice even 1500, right?

You could run it as full "bring 2k, make a new 1.5k list before each game", or use a core system with 1000 as a core, then 1000 from where to choose the 500 points before each game, something like that. Besides, it doesn't matter if you get exactly to 1500 pts to make it worthwhile.

I think it's a smart system. Brings yet another part of meta into tournaments, but probably would make them more fun, placing the more experienced players higher.

[EDMM]

The problem: all units are not pointed equally.

In magic, each card is an equal 1/60th of the "army". You can then switch out cards easily. With 40k, units are not typically nice round numbers that you can make 500 point chunks to swap in and out.

A better option might be to make a 1000 point core army and two or more 500 point "support armies", possibly using allies. You can then select which 500 point force to use.

Or just do the sideboard, and leave it to the players to sort out how they organize their points. They would only be penalizing themselves.

[Asymmetric]

The problem: all units are not pointed equally.

In magic, each card is an equal 1/60th of the "army". You can then switch out cards easily. With 40k, units are not typically nice round numbers that you can make 500 point chunks to swap in and out.

Thats a fair point I suppose. I viewed it as you can never field more 1,500 points so changing list may result in having to field a lower than 1,500 point list, a sort of slight punishment for allowing such flexibility.

A better option might be to make a 1000 point core army and two or more 500 point "support armies", possibly using allies. You can then select which 500 point force to use.

That probably might be a more tournament friendly option. I think it would be acceptable. Infinitely preferable over the current situation, althougth I do like how many options my solution allows for.

[Ruination Drinker]

Magic The Gathering in my 40k?

Never.

You get a Degeneration X salute for even suggesting such a thing!

X
X
X

[Aryllon]

A better option might be to make a 1000 point core army and two or more 500 point "support armies", possibly using allies. You can then select which 500 point force to use.

This is just a simple way of managing the original proposition from a player's perspective, rather than an alternative (unless the organiser only lets you make changes at this level).

Instead of building a 1500pt army every game from the 2000pts you brought along, pre-prepare your list into 1000 / 500 / 500 blocks.
It's no different, easier to manage for all concerned, but gives you less flexibility to react to your opponent (you'll probably end up chopping & changing anyway, if allowed).

[tiger g]

You got to be kidding us. Just one army. Organizers have enough trouble checking the lists and have people swap out items. Bring a balanced list and stop the cheese. The cream will rise to the top but at least some cheese mongers will lose the first few tournaments.

[Asymmetric]

You got to be kidding us. Just one army. Organizers have enough trouble checking the lists and have people swap out items. Bring a balanced list and stop the cheese. The cream will rise to the top but at least some cheese mongers will lose the first few tournaments.

I'm not sure what your suggesting.

[ColShaw]

I'm not sure what your suggesting.

He's suggesting a single army list, no sideboard, just like it has been in the past.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Magic The Gathering in my 40k?

Never.

You get a Degeneration X salute for even suggesting such a thing!

X
X
X

Why? I think sideboards are a really good idea. I wanted to introduce it for Warhammer a number of years ago to help with some of the balance issues. With how much variability there is in GW games having a major core army and then a couple of options to deal with whatever comes should hopefully make for more interesting and even games. Do we really enjoy games where it's obviously really mismatched from the start?

[Asymmetric]

He's suggesting a single army list, no sideboard, just like it has been in the past.

Well my response to that opinion would be - I'd like to have have more input and strategical depth to my games than a slightly more advanced version of just rock paper scissors.

[Ronin_eX]

Since there aren't a huge number of viable archetypes in 40k tournaments I think the Warmachine/Hordes method would work best here and that they should just let you bring two lists. Sideboards are hard to do in a game this variable so it would probably be easier to check two fully functional lists rather than cross-check a single list with multiple "add-ons".

That said I like the idea of building a core list at a specific point value and then having one or two swap-out components of a set limit. This is basically like the above but less flexible. Since a lot of tournaments are 1850 perhaps the core units take of 1000-1200 and the remaining 650-850 are to be used to come up with 2-3 sub-lists.

I like the concept of side-boards because it makes the metagame a lot more flexible and responsive. Single-list play tends more toward stagnating play with occaisional bouts of brilliance when everything gets bogged down by one or two hyper-specialized archetypes and a smart player exploits their knowledge of the meta to beat them. Side-boarding allows for people to adjust things more subtly and I tend to prefer that more. It also allows otherwise useless tournament choices to come in to play because you can now change things based on observations. So if a unit is unpopular in tournaments because it is too much of a risk to take for an uncommon corner case where it may be helpful then suddenly you can more readily use things like that. A more flexible and interesting metagame is good for everyone.

[Scalebug]

To be fair, it is not a novel idea, it is something people have done on occasion for tournaments, leagues and events since 2nd ed at least, not because it is needed, but because it is fun. It gives a different strategic challenge, and lets you use more of your models if you wish.

Reason we don't see it as standard is that:
1) It adds another possibility for people to mess up their lists... TO's like these possibilities to be minimized.
2) A lot of people feel the challenge should be to be able to construct an all-comers without this safety net of being able to tailor your list to the opponent.
3) The thing about it breaking up some armies worse than other, you not being able to keep "part" of a unit in either block efficiently, like if you have a 1200 pts main part an a 500 point side board, those last three 200 point units will not fit in there, really.
4) If it became standard, the usual whiners would go "Waaaa! GW/The TO's/the saucerpeople are forcing me to buy more stuff!!!111.


All in all, it will not be needed now either. It is kinda fun to play then and again though.

[Asymmetric]

That said I like the idea of building a core list at a specific point value and then having one or two swap-out components of a set limit. This is basically like the above but less flexible. Since a lot of tournaments are 1850 perhaps the core units take of 1000-1200 and the remaining 650-850 are to be used to come up with 2-3 sub-lists.

I like the concept of side-boards because it makes the metagame a lot more flexible and responsive. Single-list play tends more toward stagnating play with occaisional bouts of brilliance when everything gets bogged down by one or two hyper-specialized archetypes and a smart player exploits their knowledge of the meta to beat them. Side-boarding allows for people to adjust things more subtly and I tend to prefer that more. It also allows otherwise useless tournament choices to come in to play because you can now change things based on observations. So if a unit is unpopular in tournaments because it is too much of a risk to take for an uncommon corner case where it may be helpful then suddenly you can more readily use things like that. A more flexible and interesting metagame is good for everyone.

I agree 100%.

It's entirely possible that simply allowing you to field a core of approximately 66% of the points and then have two different bolt on sections of 33% of the points which you can choose to field prior to the battle.

To be fair, it is not a novel idea, it is something people have done on occasion for tournaments, leagues and events since 2nd ed at least, not because it is needed, but because it is fun. It gives a different strategic challenge, and lets you use more of your models if you wish.

Reason we don't see it as standard is that:
1) It adds another possibility for people to mess up their lists... TO's like these possibilities to be minimized.
2) A lot of people feel the challenge should be to be able to construct an all-comers without this safety net of being able to tailor your list to the opponent.
3) The thing about it breaking up some armies worse than other, you not being able to keep "part" of a unit in either block efficiently, like if you have a 1200 pts main part an a 500 point side board, those last three 200 point units will not fit in there, really.
4) If it became standard, the usual whiners would go "Waaaa! GW/The TO's/the saucerpeople are forcing me to buy more stuff!!!111.

All in all, it will not be needed now either. It is kinda fun to play then and again though.

It doesn't need to be original idea for it to be an improvement.

I don't really have too much sympathy for tournament organisers, they have taken on the task of organising a tournament and they have a duty to make it the best it can be for the players. Likewise, I think it is somewhat disparaging to 40k players that they would find a simple sideboard system overly complicated to run in a tournament. Other strategy games do it as standard practise, why not us.

I think with changes to 6th edition especially makes making an extreme list, as opposed to a balanced list, more important than ever if you want to succeed in a tournament. The single list format rewards players who bring the most extreme version of a list they can imagine and then get a good bracket placement where they don't fight a niche counter list.

For me, the tournament needs to more about the games themselves and less about the lists, that's why I'm there, to have good close well fought games.

[Narf]

build a balanced list? find out how your army works, and match that against other armies, learn from it, go back an build a balanced list...

u don't need a side board, you just need to understand your army an the opponents army.

[Asymmetric]

build a balanced list? find out how your army works, and match that against other armies, learn from it, go back an build a balanced list...

u don't need a side board, you just need to understand your army an the opponents army.

That isn't really a viable suggestion. The variance of list selection in 40k is too extreme to be able to roll out some "I have all my bases covered" list in most cases. The Necron list I posted in the first post is an example of a list that only way of consistently defeating it is to bring an excessive number of AA weapons in most cases, far more than you would be able to bring in a "balanced" list.

5th edition was not dominated by "balanced" lists either. It was dominated by the most extreme mech Guard lists and the most psycannon/psyrifle heavy Grey Knight lists you could find. Why? Because they wrecked mech lists better than anyone else.

A sideboard actually does encourage balanced lists, since a sideboard allows you to shutdown players who build on an extreme concept for an army list by taking an equally extreme counter response.

[squeekenator]

Personally I love the idea of a sideboard, though the exact execution could be difficult due to highly variable points values, like Lord Inquisitor pointed out. Gimmicky lists aren't necessarily a bad thing, but auto-losing because someone brought more Land Raiders than your list can deal with... Well, ideally people would just make all-comers lists that can deal with any army reasonably well, but I'm not sure how realistic that is, particularly with the introduction of fliers adding yet another extreme army composition.

[IncrediSteve]

As a player of both games I naturally quite like the idea.

Sadly it will never fly. In my 12 years of 40k I've never once felt the "need" to play in a Tournament. This game is just not meant for tournaments. The rules are made to be cool and fun, and are not tested intensely [or some may wander if they get tested at all ;-]. The first half of almost every rules paragraph is [mechanically] meaningless background for chris'sakes.

The Codex system is blatantly designed for selling models and is a nightmare for rules consistency. If 40k wanted to be a competitive tournament game, it would have the BRB, one giant Imperial Book, one giant Astartes Book, one for all Chaos and one for all Xenos. But 40k does not want to be a competitive tournament game. It wants to sell models firstly, and be a casual beer and pretzels game secondly. I've never lost my love of 40k because that was never in question for me. It's about building and painting sweet models, and playing a fun battle versus your pal's sweet models.

Ranty tangent aside, I'd love to be wrong and see a fair amount of tournaments adapt some kind of model like this. Hell, I might even play in a couple were that to happen