| Autor |
Nachricht |
Dreadnought
Blue Moon World Champion 2013
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 09.03.2007
Beiträge: 1523
Wohnort: Berlin
|
|
Um die Diskussion mal anzustoßen bzw. eine Plattform für den Meinungsaustausch zu bieten, eröffne ich mal diesen Thread.
Das Prinzip des Sideboards:
Ein Sideboard ist quasi ein Nebendeck, das eine bestimmte Anzahl von Karten (und FremdMonden) enthält. Bei Kristallspielen können nach jedem Spiel (oder auch nur nach dem ersten Spiel) beliebig viele Karten mit den Karten aus dem Sideboard ausgetauscht werden. Voraussetzung dabei ist, dass das Hauptdeck regelkonform bleibt. Um das Spielprinzip nicht all zu sehr zu verändern bzw. zu beeinflussen, sollte das Sideboard sehr klein gehalten werden und nur wenige Karten und Fremdmonde enthalten dürfen.
Offensichtlicher Vorteil: Es können nach dem ersten Spiel Karten aus dem Deck entfernt werden, die gegen bestimmte Völker nichts oder nur wenig bringen und mit effektiveren Karten ausgetauscht werden.
Offensichtlicher Nachteil: Starke Völker werden dadurch noch stärker gemacht, schwache und anfällige Völker unter Umständen noch schwächer.
Diskussion freigegeben 
|
|
|
|
|
|
   |
    |
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Doesn't work. I could spell out why, but that would spoil the fun. Here's a one word hint: moons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
  |
|
Dreadnought
Blue Moon World Champion 2013
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 09.03.2007
Beiträge: 1523
Wohnort: Berlin
|
|
I still do not see the major issue anyway. Perhaps I think too simple. But where is the fundamental problem with the game concept of moons in reference to a sideboard?
For example you can say the sideboard can contain a maximum of three cards and five moons (what would be a bit too strong perhaps but for instance) and of course you have to exchange with your maindeck in compliance with the regulations of the Blue Moon Deckbuilding. In effect you have still a regular deck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Wrzlprmft
Blue Moon Master
Anmeldungsdatum: 02.01.2008
Beiträge: 249
|
|
So far, I can see only one and a half issue connected with moons. The full one is, that you have to keep the number of cards of the deck constant and want to keep the number of moons constant.
So, if you want to exchange only one card, both cards involved should have the same number of moons, which is a strong restriction to the possible sideboard actions. Of course you might reduce the moons of the deck, but you still must put a card into the deck, that has the same or a lower number of moons than the removed one. Considering, that you usually do not want to take out cards with 3 or 4 moons, you would only put cards with 2 moons or less into your sideboard. Of course you might exchange more than one card, but there would be similar problems, which are just more complicated to describe.
However I do not consider this to be such a big problem, since there are still plenty of possibilities, if you consider this, when you build your sideboard.
Slightly connected with this again, small decks may have the advantage or disadvantage, that they have few cards from other races/tribes/species (what is the official Englisch name?), which should make out the major part of the cards considerable for exchanging in any deck. On the one hand, this limits the possibilities of sideboard actions further. On the other hand, these cards are the ones, that define the individual style and features of the deck, and therefore decks with few cards might be radically changeable in style by sideboarding. But if advantage or disadvantage, it could be controlled by defining individual sideboard restrictions for each inquisitor.
So far, I still think, that the major problem might be, that tribes, that are vulnerable to certain cards (e. g. Khind or Mimix to Mad Mike or the Inpenetrable Fog), will suffer strong disadvantages from this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
Dreadnought
Blue Moon World Champion 2013
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 09.03.2007
Beiträge: 1523
Wohnort: Berlin
|
|
| I totally agree with this argumentation. In my opinion the crucial point of the entire idea is tweaking the concept of a sideboard. It is just a problem of adjustment to balance the different sizes of stacks and number of moons in the competition of two decks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Dreadnought hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| I totally agree with this argumentation. In my opinion the crucial point of the entire idea is tweaking the concept of a sideboard. It is just a problem of adjustment to balance the different sizes of stacks and number of moons in the competition of two decks. |
Now consider how you are going to enforce this in a tournament.
Note that all you need to do in a Magic tournament is count 15 cards out. That doesn't need a referee. But with moons you can't do it.
And if you don't enforce moons, you've broken the Blue Moon card balance model.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Dreadnought
Blue Moon World Champion 2013
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 09.03.2007
Beiträge: 1523
Wohnort: Berlin
|
|
...still do not get the point...
What I was talking about was how can we figure out that the concept of a sideboard will not be too devastating to the concept of Blue Moon as a whole. Beside that I do not see any major problems, even for tournaments.
Following your argumentation: Deckbuilding in MtG ist far more easier than in BM, because everything you have to consider is not to have a single card more than four times in your deck and do not excess the number of 60 cards (what is as I remember an optional and as such an optimal regulation for decksize). The possibility to cheat (intentionally or not) in Blue Moon is given already and is therefore no critical point against a sideboard in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| Dreadnought hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| ...still do not get the point... |
Indeed.
| Zitat: |
| Beside that I do not see any major problems, even for tournaments. |
Because you haven't reasoned it through.
| Zitat: |
| Following your argumentation: Deckbuilding in MtG ist far more easier than in BM, because everything you have to consider is not to have a single card more than four times in your deck and do not excess the number of 60 cards (what is as I remember an optional and as such an optimal regulation for decksize). |
Actually that's wrong, 60 is a minimum, not maximum. But that's beside the point. None of that has anything to do with my "argumentation".
In Magic, once the deck and sideboard are confirmed legal, sideboarding can be trivially verified - as long as the deck is 60 cards, and 15 cards are out, the sideboarding is legal. The opponent can count the omitted cards face down, no referee needed. (There's a subtlety over resetting, but arguing that Magic isn't totally straightforward is not a way to argue it's easy in Blue Moon.)
Now how can you verify that a Blue Moon sideboard switches in the same number of moons as it switches out? And if you don't do that, a sideboard is just a way to increase moons, which is quite wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
ErzEngel
Gott der Kreativität
Alter: 44
Anmeldungsdatum: 21.11.2004
Beiträge: 3818
Wohnort: Nähe Altötting
|
|
Let's sum it up:
Sideboard in BM is not impossible but much work to verify that noone is cheating.
For single games it's not really hard work to check a deck being legal, but you would have to look at the cards (and with this your deck isn't your secret any longer).
One possible way is to check the deck after the match but then maybe the match itself becomes illegal due to a wrong number of moons.
Now to the problems within a tournament:
If you play without a sideboard, you can create fixed deck listings, that can be checked for being legal.
But if you use a sideboard, someone had to check every change within every single deck. This cannot be the opponent, because then he would know parts of the deck and could adjust his own one with cards of his sideboard, which had to be verified by the player, who could react ...
If you have a referee, this would be much work for him to verify all changes between deck and sideboard. This would slow down the speed of a tournament. So this is not a good way of organization.
With those two situations, one could say, that a sideboard IS possible, but not in a big tournament, if you have limited time.
|
|
|
|
_________________
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish that man would go away
__________________________________
"Bildung bedeutet nicht einen Eimer zu füllen, sondern ein Feuer zu entfachen."
|
|
  |
 |
|
Widukind
Blue Moon Leader***
Alter: 50
Anmeldungsdatum: 17.01.2006
Beiträge: 638
Wohnort: Böblingen
|
|
| And outside of tournaments, it's just a question of negotiation. When I say: "Ok, let's change some cards..." And my opponent agrees, then it's ok...
|
|
|
|
_________________
Wer das Feuer nicht fuerchtet, wird den Schmerz spueren.
|
|
  |
|
|
Dreadnought
Blue Moon World Champion 2013
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 09.03.2007
Beiträge: 1523
Wohnort: Berlin
|
|
Well, what's the problem? My opponent can check my deck after we finished playing. If my deck was legal there is no problem. If it was not he looses the game. For this you have to limit the possibility of changing your deck to once per cristall-game. If my opponent change cards after the first game and we are forced to play a third game I can controll his changed deck after we finished playing. Otherwise I can take this as an opportunity to look in my opponents deck and therefore take some advantages. The only problem could appear when the deck was not legal from the beginning.
Nonetheless there is one thing that have to be considered. If I play more than one cristall-game against one opponent I know his deck by rote while it is very likely that he knows my deck as well. But the heck with it...most players know there opponents decks without looking at the cards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Dearlove
Blue Moon Playtester
Anmeldungsdatum: 22.03.2004
Beiträge: 258
|
|
| ErzEngel hat folgendes geschrieben: |
| Let's sum it up |
Good summary. Of course this is only discussing the practicalities, bad. The actual desirability - which I would also say bad - is another topic. But I'm not going to join in that one.
Of course I was first involved in this discussion nearly four years ago ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Timmster
Gott von Monkey Island
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 30.11.2004
Beiträge: 4496
Wohnort: Hamburg
|
|
And still I can not see any reason, why sidepotting ( ) is not practicable for blue moon. I HAVE actualy tested it out in some matches some years ago. It worked fine:
You have your deck and a sidepot containing all the cards of your leader/bm-people PLUS a fixed number of other cards. The moons are nearly irrelevant, because there is no benefit putting only high-mooned-cards into your sidepot. You rather have to think of good card combinations and compensations...
Cheating is NOT possible at all, because (like dreaghtnought already mentioned) the opponent can check the deck after playing.
|
|
|
|
_________________
Meine EM/WM-Ergebnisse:
1. Platz: 2016, 2017, 2023 / 2. Platz: 2006, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2019 / 3. Platz: 2014, 2018, 2024 / Teilgenommen: 2008
|
|
 |
|
|
ErzEngel
Gott der Kreativität
Alter: 44
Anmeldungsdatum: 21.11.2004
Beiträge: 3818
Wohnort: Nähe Altötting
|
|
Dearlove only speaks of missing practicality in tournaments. Of course in private matches you can use a sideboard.
But how would you react, if you loose a double, triple or even quatruple "Chosen of nature" game over 2-3 hours and afterwards you check your enemy's deck and recognize he used 1 moon more than allowed?
Would you just say: "Well, bad luck. You lost." ?
|
|
|
|
_________________
Yesterday upon the stair
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish that man would go away
__________________________________
"Bildung bedeutet nicht einen Eimer zu füllen, sondern ein Feuer zu entfachen."
|
|
| |
|
|
Dreadnought
Blue Moon World Champion 2013
Alter: 43
Anmeldungsdatum: 09.03.2007
Beiträge: 1523
Wohnort: Berlin
|
|
Ja, und die Praktikabilität sehe ich trotz der Schwierigkeiten für gegeben.
Wenn es ein Turnierspiel ist, ja. Ein Mond kann einen enormen Unterschied machen, erst Recht in DF-Decks. Ich denke es sollte die Grundvoraussetzung sein, dass man ein reguläres Deck baut. Die Deckbau-Regeln gibts ja nicht umsonst. Da kommt es imo nicht drauf an ob ein Mond oder 5 Monde zu viel...
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
