Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Topic started by: MrMiYoda on September 19, 2009, 01:15:42 AM
-
For the current, Team Play Official Rules, please use the Tournament Host Guide (https://www.cactusgamedesign.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Redemption-2015-Tournament-Guide.pdf) from Cactus Game Design. Team Play Official Rules are found in section "III. AFTER THE TOURNAMENT - C".
Per Rob's indication that team rules shall be based off Nats09 rules, I hereby paraphrase:
All players use a standard Type-1 deck. Players sit alternating between the two teams around the table. Teammates may discuss their strategy openly. Standard T1 multiplayer game rules apply with the following exceptions:
TEAMS share a common Land of Bondage, Land of Redemption and Fortress cards. The rest of the cards are unique to each player (GCs, ECs, artifact pile, draw pile, discard pile, hand) and are treated like a standard T1 game. Since the Land of Redemption is shared, a TEAM wins as soon as the total number of Lost Souls rescued by both players on a TEAM is 5.
The "intro-prep phase" is used, which allows all players to put down characters, warrior-class and territory-class enhancements, fortresses, sites (and put LSs in them), and artifacts out of their original draw-8 before the first turn. The "2nd player draw" rule is also used meaning that only the first player to take a turn does not draw three cards to start their turn. This actually makes it a real choice for the player who draws the most Lost Souls whether to play first or pick someone on the opposing team.
When the current player makes a rescue attempt, the opponent to their left has the choice to block or to "pass the block" to their teammate.
Cards may be put into fortresses by either player on a TEAM during their turn, and removed from a fortress by either player on a TEAM during their turn. This allows passing of characters (through KotW and Goshen) and enhancements (through Storehouse). It also allows limited shared control of artifacts (ie. in a temple). Because fortresses are shared, their abilities also affect both people on a TEAM (ie. protecting a civilization).
Teammates may NOT play enhancements on each other's characters.
Only 1 of each dominant may be played by a TEAM. When they are played they are given to the other TEAM to put into their LOR to remember which have already been played (they do not count as redeemed souls, of course) until the end of the game. Extra dominants may be discarded (ie. to kill CoM), but may not be played. Doubt is also able to be played straight into battle (instead of territory), but does not prohibit adding another EC to battle as well.
Lost Souls: LSs may be placed in sites by either player on a TEAM during their turn.
Definitions: "your" means that the card is owned by you or your teammate, and controlled by you or your teammate. "opponent's" and "opponents'" and "opponent" all mean either player on opposing TEAM.
******************************************************
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING TO ADD OR TO DELETE.
GODBLESS.
-
Roy,
There is also an "Advanced Teams Format" that differs slightly from this format which we call the " standard" format. In the Advanced format, there are 2 key differences:
#1 Players have separated everything except Land of Redemption;
#2 Players CAN play enhancements on their partners characters with permission and following the rules of initiative. This allows for less confusion more consistency for teaching and deck building and the tournament directors can tailor the format to their local players needs and desires.
We want to stress to the TD's that enough advanced advertising be done to let players know and prepare for which format is to be employed.
Thanks for all your investment into our community.
John
Beast form the East
-
In this "advanced" format, there isn't a shared Land of Bondage? So, do all the rules of passing the block not apply in this "format"?
-
You would play it exactly like a regular redemption game. You need to provide the initial character to either rescue or block and then you could band to your partners character right through Wall O Protection. You can also use the Darkness for aid as well.
John
-
I wanted to make a point about the differences between the two formats for hosts to consider when deciding what to do at their tournament. The standard format makes it easier for players to form teams at the tournament without having prepared their decks to work together ahead of time. If their decks don't use the same brigades and strategies it doesn't provide as large a benefit to the other team since each teammate has almost the same chance of winning a battle or block as they might when playing their own deck in Type-1.
In the advanced format that is mentioned here, a team that had to form at the tournament and only had their standard Type-1 decks is at a pretty large disadvantage to a team that coordinated theirs ahead of time. The team with matching brigades would have twice the card pool to use in every rescue or block because they can use enhancements from both player's hands while their opponents couldn't because their brigades don't match.
If a host has all of the same players formed into the same teams at every tournament, then it might not matter to them which format is used. But if a bunch of independent Type-1 players want to form teams just for that particular tournament, the standard format would seem to give a much more level playing field to all of the teams.
Mike
-
There are a couple other differences to consider as well between these two formats.
The "standard" format allows for a wider variety of deck combinations. Both players could play balanced decks (like Ben & Kirk won with), or one teammate could focus solely on defense and the other on offense (like Gabe and Kevin won with). In the "advanced" format, both decks must be able to defend because be attacked individually.
The "standard" format allows for more teamwork throughout the turn. You can pass characters and manage artifacts (in a temple) during the prep phase. You can decide together who will block when attacked. And you can pass enhancements through Storehouse during the discard phase. The "advanced" format allows for more teamwork when attacking during the battle phase (allowing both players to use enhancements) and before the event begins (due to the importance of building decks to match up).
-
I definitely like the standard format.
Also... so it was decided offically that "opponent" means EITHER? So Micah's ability is EITHER opponent? I thought it was ruled that Micah's ability is played that "opponent" means the one who gets the first chance to block.
-
The two different formats seem to complete change what the TEAM Category means. It seems to me that one needs to be pick over the other as the official way to play. If I were to decided to play teams at states or regionals how would I know what the exact rule of play are going to be if there is more than one official way to play.
-
We want to sress to the TD's that enough advanced advertising be done to let plays know and prepare for which formatt is to be employed.
First of all, the host of the tournament that you go to should follow the good advice above and announce ahead of time which rule set will be used :)
Second of all, unless you are going to a tournament run by John Michalicantspellhisname, I would probably assume that the standard rule set will be used. As far as I know, that is the format that is being used by almost all other tournament hosts. It would be good to get a feel for that though. Any other tournament hosts out there want to comment on how you've been hosting?
-
The official rules for teams need to be in the tournament guide. When is this going to happen?
-
Please go to the website www.ggamestore.com (http://www.ggamestore.com) and you can find a button link to the rules governing team play at Nationals. I welcome any constructive comment and if given a compelling case, am open to modification. On June 11th any modifications will be solidified and that rules document will be adopted for Nationals 2010.
Thanks in advance for your contributions.
JOHN
-
I welcome any constructive comment and if given a compelling case, am open to modification. On June 11th any modifications will be solidified and that rules document will be adopted for Nationals 2010.
The rules that you have posted (http://www.ggamestore.com/games/index.php?main_page=page&id=16&zenid=oj1oa3qn649je6jppon21ujq30) currently are pretty similar to the "advanced rules" talked about earlier in this thread. I know that you personally prefer this format, and since you're running Nats it is your prerogative to run it that way.
However, I am under the impression that almost everyone else in the country has been playing it using the "standard format" talked about earlier in this thread. The previous two National tournaments have also used the "standard format". Do you really think it's a good idea to make this switch? Would you consider allowing the players to vote on which format they prefer? I would abstain from voting since I probably won't be able to attend Nats myself. But I would like for the people who are planning on attending to have a voice before making a relatively big change to an event that has been so popular the last couple years.
-
With all due respect John,
Rule 8 is against official rules for team play, It has been an official category for 11 months now, and the rules have been official for that long, we can't go changing them now for nationals. Players should not be able to play enhancements on thier opponents characters.
Rule 6 is also odd, I'm 99% certain it was ruled at last years nationals that playing Son of God with your team-mate's NJ was legal. I'd like to see that stay the same, as I'm sure most people have been playing it that way this year.
Rule 10 confuses me also, are you saying that code talk is no longer allowed? I.E. I can't say "Brett favre can't throw a hail mary" and have my teammate know that I have Son of God, but not NJ in my hand? If so than I disagree with this rule also, talking in code is 3/4 of what makes Teams fun.
Rule 2 is also a deviation from what Rob approved last year, in that Fortress' are shared between teammates, whereas you have them as unshared.
As the majority of hosts have been using this rule-set for the year, I don't think its a good idea to play by what I'm assuming are your 'advanced rules' which I have to stress to you are unofficial from everything I've seen.
-
With all due respect John,
Rule 8 is against official rules for team play, It has been an official category for 11 months now, and the rules have been official for that long, we can't go changing them now for nationals. Players should not be able to play enhancements on thier opponents teammate's characters.
Rule 6 is also odd, I'm 99% certain it was ruled at last years nationals that playing Son of God with your team-mate's NJ was legal. I'd like to see that stay the same, as I'm sure most people have been playing it that way this year.
Rule 10 confuses me also, are you saying that code talk is no longer allowed? I.E. I can't say "Brett favre can't throw a hail mary" and have my teammate know that I have Son of God, but not NJ in my hand? If so than I disagree with this rule also, talking in code is 3/4 of what makes Teams fun.
Rule 2 is also a deviation from what Rob approved last year, in that Fortress' are shared between teammates, whereas you have them as unshared.
As the majority of hosts have been using this rule-set for the year, I don't think its a good idea to play by what I'm assuming are your 'advanced rules' which I have to stress to you are unofficial from everything I've seen.
As far as rule 6 goes... I find that it makes more sense the way John has it. Redemption jumped through many loopholes just so SoG, NJ wouldn't work in a multiplayer game. Simultaneous means simultaneous. Why should there be an exception for teams???
Rule 10. I think he means just the opposite. Table talk is completely allowed. He's just giving a warning that it may benifit opponents. The last sentence is simply there to prevent a teammate from giving his hand to his partner so he can browse through it.
The other two seem to be adaptations of the 'advanced rules'.
Just a side note:
In John's defense, there is no rulebook that has team rules in it. The only thing close to official is a post on these boards (which happens to have both formats there). He brought this event into fruition 3 years ago at NY nats and is probably reverting back to what he found was best.
P.S. - on a completely personal note, I don't think I mind these rules too much, because it eliminates the "your" problem which I believe to be wholly unnecessary and and extremely complex.
-
I agree with everyone above me.
With all respect, if something has been played a certain way all season, to make such major rule changes for an event that is now official seems contrary to how we have always done things. The best example I can think of is Nats '06, where it had been decided BEFORE Nationals that SoG/NJ had to both be your own, the rule did not go into effect until after Nationals occurred that year.
Also, I agree with Mark. I actually had never even HEARD of advanced rules until it was mentioned in this thread.
Anyway, my point is... I do understand the rule modifications, but to only have them be in place at Nats is, in my opinion, a really bad idea.
-
So...when are these "official" rules going to to be in the official tournament guide?
-
Please go to the website www.ggamestore.com (http://www.ggamestore.com) and you can find a button link to the rules governing team play at Nationals. I welcome any constructive comment and if given a compelling case, am open to modification. On June 11th any modifications will be solidified and that rules document will be adopted for Nationals 2010.
Firstly, I want to thank you for being willing to modify the plan on TEAMS at Nats 2010 to align more closely with the "standard version" that has been in use around the country this year. I know that you personally prefer the other way, and that it is a sacrifice on your part. I also know that you have always been a person who puts others before himself when it comes to Redemption, and I appreciate that about you.
Secondly, I just wanted to ask about the 3 minor variances that I noticed between the posted rules and the way that most people have been playing. They are:
1 - the players on a TEAM can combine to play a SoG/NJ combo (since they could orchestrate to do it simultaneously).
2 - Doubt can be played directly into battle (although not prohibiting another EC from entering as well - thanks RR).
3 - the definition of "your" and "opponent's/opponents'" being modified to refer to either player on a TEAM
I am curious, did you mean to exclude these rules, or were they accidentally left off?
-
Secondly, I just wanted to ask about the 3 minor variances that I noticed between the posted rules and the way that most people have been playing. They are:
1 - the players on a TEAM can combine to play a SoG/NJ combo (since they could orchestrate to do it simultaneously).
2 - Doubt can be played directly into battle (although not prohibiting another EC from entering as well - thanks RR).
3 - the definition of "your" and "opponent's/opponents'" being modified to refer to either player on a TEAM
I am curious, did you mean to exclude these rules, or were they accidentally left off?
Some of this is my initiative but, with John's support. As much as possible I want "standard team rules" to match Redemption Rules:
1) Regarding # 1 - A player may only play NJ with his own SoG. Two teammates cannot.
2) I am afraid I am a bit lost on your Doubt question. Has someone ruled that Doubt need not start in a territory to trigger? Moreover, Doubt does not band. How would another EC enter battle by my playing Doubt into battle either from territory or hypothetically from hand?
3) Your means "you" not your teammate. However opponent's/opponents means either player on the opposite team. For example, my Chariot of Fire only brings back my Heroes in my discard pile, not my teammate's.
Note: as you cited John set aside his regional variation that player's can play enhancements on their teammate's characters because it also does not match Redemption rules in other multi- player events.
-
Rob has brought to the teams format, straight forward interpretation of the rules, which i strongly agree with. Why should Doubt be able to be played straight into battle anyways? because we wish it could? Tkank you rob for clearing all this up for everyone.
-
Why should Doubt be able to be played straight into battle anyways? because we wish it could?
Precisely. The concept of getting rid of the territory restriction on Doubt was introduced when TEAMS was a just-for-fun category to make Doubt useful for something. I suppose some people might still use it, but certainly not as many as before (it goes from being a deck staple to wasted space in my mind).
A few more points:
1) I thought the reason that NJ could not be played with an opponent's SoG was because there was no way to do it simultaneously. I think that a strict reading of NJ's ability would allow for two teammates who can discuss strategy and can literally place NJ and SoG simultaneously on the table to do so. But it's not that big of an issue, so I guess that's fine.
2)Kind of disappointed about Doubt, but going by strict reading of the rules, I guess it makes more sense to not have it be that way.
3)I am perfectly fine that the "your" ruling was changed. I'm still convinced it could cause more confusion than strategy/teammate interaction.
-
1) Regarding # 1 - A player may only play NJ with his own SoG. Two teammates cannot.
I agree with the "other Prof" that 2 teammates could indeed orchestrate playing SoG/NJ from their two hands so that they landed simultaneously. It also allows greater deck freedom. If SoG/NJ have to come from the same hand, then a TEAM really only has 2 possibilities (1 player has both in deck, or both players have both in deck). If they can come from either teammate, then there are more options (both players could have SoG with only 1 having NJ, 1 could have SoG and the other could have NJ). If SoG/NJ have to come from the same player, it will also force at least 1 player on each team to play a speed deck to ensure that they get to those cards. I would ask for you to reconsider allowing this variation for TEAMS play.
2) I am afraid I am a bit lost on your Doubt question. Has someone ruled that Doubt need not start in a territory to trigger? Moreover, Doubt does not band. How would another EC enter battle by my playing Doubt into battle either from territory or hypothetically from hand?
When TEAMS first started in its present form, Doubt was the newest dominant, but no one used it (and they still pretty much don't). I also wanted to encourage more defense to be played (unlike T1-mp), and so we basically gave Doubt an errata just for TEAMS that allowed it to be played straight into battle. The only problem that arose was that RR came up with the idea of using it as a CTB card (which it of course is not classified as) by making a rescue attempt and then playing Doubt before the opponent could put in another EC to block. Thus we made the clarification that if you played Doubt into battle when your opponents would normally block, that it did not prevent your opponent from still adding their own EC to block as well. This special rule for TEAMS led to some good game play and led to Doubt actually seeing play. I understand if it gets dropped now that TEAMS is an official category. But I would really like it if Doubt could get an errata for all categories that make it work the way it has in the past in TEAMS.
3) Your means "you" not your teammate. However opponent's/opponents means either player on the opposite team. For example, my Chariot of Fire only brings back my Heroes in my discard pile, not my teammate's.
I'm also OK with losing this rule as it did cause some confusion for people. I also appreciate that based on your opponent's/opponents ruling that Unknown Nation could still be used to add an EC when your teammate is being attacked. I assume that since fortresses are shared, that they are considered "owned" by both players as well as "controlled" by them. Otherwise using your ruling above, a teammate's Wall of Protection would not protect your characters because "you" don't "own" that Wall of Protection card. Do I assume correctly?
-
If SoG/NJ have to come from the same hand, then a TEAM really only has 2 possibilities (1 player has both in deck, or both players have both in deck).
One of my teams deck doesn't have SoG/NJ at all. It requires a slight change of strategy, but I feel it's very viable, even for tournament play.
Also, the "you/your" ruling makes me very sad. :(
-
Mark PM'd me asking that I respond to his post so here goes:
Regarding # 1) SoG and NJ already represent a significant percentage of the game score, especially in Type 1. I am not going to make it easier for Teams to play SoG with NJ than it is for single players.
Regarding # 2) I am not going to make Doubt do something it doesn't do to accommodate teams. Understand that as much as possible errata is reserved for correcting a card when it is doing something unintended that is breaking the game. Errata is not going to be used upgrade cards to make them more useful.
-
Mark PM'd me asking that I respond to his post so here goes:
Regarding # 1) SoG and NJ already represent a significant percentage of the game score, especially in Type 1. I am not going to make it easier for Teams to play SoG with NJ than it is for single players.
Regarding # 2) I am not going to make Doubt do something it doesn't do to accommodate teams. Understand that as much as possible errata is reserved for correcting a card when it is doing something unintended that is breaking the game. Errata is not going to be used upgrade cards to make them more useful.
Rob, I respect your decision on both counts. I would just like to add that in my limited experience with TEAMS, I have nearly timed out in all TEAMS games I've played. And this was WITH the ability to play NJ with your teammate's SoG. With the ability to have not one but two big defenses (or one deck completely devoted to defense, as many people choose to do) on a TEAM, games take longer than a typical MP game. I think allowing this small change might help that. Just my two cents.
-
I have nearly timed out in all TEAMS games I've played. And this was WITH the ability to play NJ with your teammate's SoG.
I agree with the "other prof's" concern. I do think that making it harder for the SoG/NJ combo to come up will lead to either more timeouts, or pushing more people to play speed like T1-mp. Do we want that?
As for not using errata's to make cards more powerful, I hadn't thought of it in those terms, and I agree with Rob. Opening that door would be dangerous. After Doubt, people would want an errata for Split Altar, and then more cards. Rather to never start down that path.
Finally I'm still curious about my 3rd point above. Do I interpret your decision about "your" correctly Rob?
-
So, I just want to make sure I'm understanding this correctly, the only thing from my deck that can affect my teammate are fortresses?
I can definitely understand not playing enhancements on my teammates characters, but my artifacts don't do anything either?
I can certainly understand changing the "you/your" rule, though I can't say I agree with it's removal altogether. It sort of feels like some of these changes kind of defeat the whole point of a team game to me.
Now, I could be wrong, but this just seems to really limit strategy to me, any suggestions or comments are welcome.
-
3) Your means "you" not your teammate. However opponent's/opponents means either player on the opposite team. For example, my Chariot of Fire only brings back my Heroes in my discard pile, not my teammate's.
I'm also OK with losing this rule as it did cause some confusion for people. I also appreciate that based on your opponent's/opponents ruling that Unknown Nation could still be used to add an EC when your teammate is being attacked. I assume that since fortresses are shared, that they are considered "owned" by both players as well as "controlled" by them. Otherwise using your ruling above, a teammate's Wall of Protection would not protect your characters because "you" don't "own" that Wall of Protection card. Do I assume correctly?
[/quote]
Yes.
-
OK, so basically teams is two players playing separately except for land of bondage and land of redemption...so why is it called TEAMS? Just a little frustrated that TEAMS is slowly sinking back into the background as just another long multi-player category...
-
OK, so basically teams is two players playing separately except for land of bondage and land of redemption
No. TEAMS is still a format where 2 players are working very closely to get to 5 LSs before the other 2 players at the table. It still has shared fortresses, which allows teammates to pass each other characters (KotW & Goshen), enhancements (storehouse), and artifacts (temples). And unlike other multi-player events where dominants and artifacts could easily be used by any other player at the table to stop you from winning, in TEAMS you know that at least one other player at the table will be using all their dominants and artifacts to help you win.
I do wish that the SoG/NJ ruling and "your/yours" ruling were different, but TEAMS will still be a fun event filled with a lot of great co-operation.
-
Hey, just back from Iowa State. Gabe Isbell said he got an email from Rob that contradicts many team rules. I'll probably let him explains beings I don't remember too well.
EDIT: Upon further review (I didn't realize Rob posted some notes in this thread), I can only think of one. We were told fortresses were NOT shared.
-
We were told fortresses were NOT shared.
I have heard no such rumor. However, the rules for the event are posted at the Nationals website. (http://www.ggamestore.com/games/index.php?main_page=page&id=16&chapter=2) And there it is stated that fortresses ARE shared.
-
You probably want to contact Gabe on that. He said he got an email from Rob about the issue.
(So Ring Wraith and I had to adjust our decks)
-
You probably want to contact Gabe on that. He said he got an email from Rob about the issue.
(So Ring Wraith and I had to adjust our decks)
Gabe did mention that Storehouse worked... but Z's Temple didn't...why?
-
You probably want to contact Gabe on that. He said he got an email from Rob about the issue.
On the contrary, Gabe should be the one contacting. Showing up to a major tournament (Iowa State) with a private e-mail from Rob is a bad idea. This came up last summer at another tournament, and everyone agreed that it was a bad idea. I'm surprised that this has happened again this year.
The rules on fortresses in TEAMS have been consistent for the last couple years at Nats, and are consistent with what is posted on the National website. If Gabe or anyone else wants them changed, then they should ask Rob to post on the forum what those changes are, and get John M. to change what is posted on the National website. A private email is really not sufficient, and as a host, I will not be making rulings based on private emails.
-
Not allowing Z-temple to be shared would contradict a post a few spots up from this one, where you asked Rob about fortresses being shared (to clarify the "your" debate) and Rob said "Yes."
What exactly was the ruling that was made. We all need to know before more State tournaments are played.
-
I didn't hear the entire conversation, nothing about storehouse or Z's Temple.
I asked if my Wall of Protection would protect Ring Wraith's heros. The answer was no.
I asked if we both could have Wall of Protection active at the same time. The answer was yes.
-
If that is really what happened, then I am confused by this post:
3) Your means "you" not your teammate. However opponent's/opponents means either player on the opposite team. For example, my Chariot of Fire only brings back my Heroes in my discard pile, not my teammate's.
I'm also OK with losing this rule as it did cause some confusion for people. I also appreciate that based on your opponent's/opponents ruling that Unknown Nation could still be used to add an EC when your teammate is being attacked. I assume that since fortresses are shared, that they are considered "owned" by both players as well as "controlled" by them. Otherwise using your ruling above, a teammate's Wall of Protection would not protect your characters because "you" don't "own" that Wall of Protection card. Do I assume correctly?
Yes.
-
That quote seems to support that my Wall wouldn't protect RW, but we were told we could both have Wall out at the same time....
EDIT: Nevermind. Read the quote more carefully, and now I'm more confused. I'm going to go to sleep, I'm probably missing something obvious beings I'm so tired.
-
"The "intro-prep phase" is used, which allows all players to put down characters, warrior-class and territory-class enhancements, fortresses, sites (and put LSs in them), and artifacts out of their original draw-8 before the first turn. The "2nd player draw" rule is also used meaning that only the first player to take a turn does not draw three cards to start their turn. This actually makes it a real choice for the player who draws the most Lost Souls whether to play first or pick someone on the opposing team."
does this mean you can Activate an artifact? and can you play Set-asides? and is this simultaneous, or does it go around the table. i.e. my opponent lays down an EC, can I Meeting the Messiah it?
-
"The "intro-prep phase" is used, which allows all players to put down characters, warrior-class and territory-class enhancements, fortresses, sites (and put LSs in them), and artifacts out of their original draw-8 before the first turn. The "2nd player draw" rule is also used meaning that only the first player to take a turn does not draw three cards to start their turn. This actually makes it a real choice for the player who draws the most Lost Souls whether to play first or pick someone on the opposing team."
does this mean you can Activate an artifact? and can you play Set-asides? and is this simultaneous, or does it go around the table. i.e. my opponent lays down an EC, can I Meeting the Messiah it?
You may activate an artifact and/or play set-asides. The order of these does go around the table starting with whichever player is chosen to take the first turn (chosen by the player with the most LSs in play).
-
So does Wall of Protection protect your characters and your teammates characters?
We need to know.
-
So does Wall of Protection protect your characters and your teammates characters?
We need to know.
Yes. Fortresses ARE shared. Therefore, a Wall of Protection belonging to EITHER teammate would protect the characters of BOTH teammates.
This has been the rule for the last 2.5 years. It is the rule posted on the Nats website. It is the rule that Rob agreed to in this thread. It is the rule.
-
Sauce, we need to edit our decks with this new info.
-
This has been the rule for the last 2.5 years. It is the rule posted on the Nats website. It is the rule that Rob agreed to in this thread. It is the rule.
Then we need to get the details about what happened at Iowa state, and why it happened if the rule is so prominantly displayed. No offense to Gabe, but I want to hear the whole story, and why any decisions were made. I was planning on having teams at FL States and I am still new to it. If I'm already shaky on the rules, and then the rules get changed last second, then confusion and chaos are the only logical outcome. :o ;)
-
Did you eliminate the impossible? Or did you just jump straight to the improbable?
-
I was shooting for "somewhat likely."
-
I'll post here only to clarify a couple things about the Iowa State tournament teams event.
It seems that people have confused multiple things. It was never stated that I had an email from Rob regarding teams rules. An email from Rob did come up two events prior to teams, only to clarify how we handle tie breakers. We had a tie that was very similar to a situation I had emailed Rob about last month for ROOT. The 4 way tie for 2nd-4th was handled how Rob described in his email, which is also supported by the Tournament Host Guide. Tim Maly (who got first so he wasn't directly involved with the tie) thought I might be handling it wrong since all players had not played head to head. After reviewing Rob's email and the tournament guide I think he agreed that it was done correctly according to the current standard (and if you know Tim you won't be surprised that he thinks we should use a different standard). :)
Now that we've got the email thing out of the way, on to teams. I remembered there being some postings about teams rules changes after the Nationals announcement, the most notable being that you can't play NJ with your partner's SoG. One of the things I thought I'd seen is that Fortresses would not be shared. I mentioned this prior to the teams event but then searched the boards and found Rob's post. I read off the "rule changes" to all players in the room. I thought it was clear at that time that there was no change about Fortresses being shared. Maybe I didn't make that clear or maybe not everyone was paying attention. No ruling questions about shared Fortresses came up during the tournament. I don't recall anything about Storehouse or Z's Temple coming up. I did rule that Wall would not protect both players Heroes based on how I read the previous post concerning that question.
I'm not sure why there's all this fuss about hypothetical emails and wrong rulings. Ring Wraith and Rawrlolsauce won the teams event handily. Nobody else was even close to catching them. :P
-
I remembered there being some postings about teams rules changes after the Nationals announcement, the most notable being that you can't play NJ with your partner's SoG. One of the things I thought I'd seen is that Fortresses would not be shared. I mentioned this prior to the teams event but then searched the boards and found Rob's post. I read off the "rule changes" to all players in the room. I thought it was clear at that time that there was no change about Fortresses being shared. Maybe I didn't make that clear or maybe not everyone was paying attention. No ruling questions about shared Fortresses came up during the tournament. I don't recall anything about Storehouse or Z's Temple coming up. I did rule that Wall would not protect both players Heroes based on how I read the previous post concerning that question
I appreciate you sharing your side of this Gabe, and it sounds like the problem here was simply some old-fashioned miscommunication. It sounds like you did a good job of clarifying the rule changes and simply misunderstood about Wall of Protection. It's easy to make a small mistake like that as a host. I'm sure I've done similar things many times myself. As for the email thing, I just didn't want this (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=16609.msg259657#msg259657) to be happening again, and I'm glad that it didn't. Hopefully this clears everything up for everybody at this point and balance is returned to the force :)
-
I thought it was clear at that time that there was no change about Fortresses being shared. Maybe I didn't make that clear or maybe not everyone was paying attention. No ruling questions about shared Fortresses came up during the tournament. I don't recall anything about Storehouse or Z's Temple coming up.
we weren't paying attention.
on a side note, you also ruled that set-asides couldn't be played in the intro prep, and they can. for future reference.
-
Set-asides can be played during intro prep? I still haven't seen that in writing. Where does it say that?
If I'm wrong I totally admit my fault on this, I did rule that they can't be played during intro prep. Why are we making a rule that helps speed decks?
-
"The "intro-prep phase" is used, which allows all players to put down characters, warrior-class and territory-class enhancements, fortresses, sites (and put LSs in them), and artifacts out of their original draw-8 before the first turn. The "2nd player draw" rule is also used meaning that only the first player to take a turn does not draw three cards to start their turn. This actually makes it a real choice for the player who draws the most Lost Souls whether to play first or pick someone on the opposing team."
does this mean you can Activate an artifact? and can you play Set-asides? and is this simultaneous, or does it go around the table. i.e. my opponent lays down an EC, can I Meeting the Messiah it?
You may activate an artifact and/or play set-asides. The order of these does go around the table starting with whichever player is chosen to take the first turn (chosen by the player with the most LSs in play).
-
The "intro-prep phase" is used, which allows all players to put down characters, warrior-class and territory-class enhancements, fortresses, sites (and put LSs in them), and artifacts out of their original draw-8 before the first turn.
The official rules trump Prof Underwood. Unless Rob rules otherwise I don't see where it says you can play a set-aside.
-
Set-asides can be played during intro prep? I still haven't seen that in writing. Where does it say that?
The "intro-prep" phase is indeed a "prep" phase. Therefore, you can do anything that you could normally do during a "prep" phase of your turn. That would include playing set-aside cards (or for that matter, TC cards, or even A-Bom if you have High Places in play). Rob said that he wanted TEAMS rules to be similar to regular rules. Therefore "intro-prep" phase should naturally include all "prep" phase actions.
-
I thought the whole point of intro prep was to help eliminate unbalanced games by giving players a chance to set up defense (sites, arts, etc) before their first turn. It seems very counter productive to allow speed players to abuse the set-aside draw cards before they take their first turn.
Since the official rules go to the trouble of specificially mentioning warrior-class enhancements and territory class enhancements but have omitted set-aside enhancements, I can only assume that this was done intentionally. If that's not accurate (and we want to empower speed decks for teams so that they reign the way they do in T1-MP) then someone needs to update the official rules to include set-asides.
-
Since the official rules go to the trouble of specificially mentioning warrior-class enhancements and territory class enhancements but have omitted set-aside enhancements, I can only assume that this was done intentionally. If that's not accurate (and we want to empower speed decks for teams so that they reign the way they do in T1-MP) then someone needs to update the official rules to include set-asides.
I agree with Gabe. except, I really kinda wish set-asides could, but based on the rules, it certainly seems that they don't.
-
I thought the whole point of intro prep was to help eliminate unbalanced games by giving players a chance to set up defense (sites, arts, etc) before their first turn. It seems very counter productive to allow speed players to abuse the set-aside draw cards before they take their first turn.
Allowing people to put up defensive artifacts, put LSs in sites, and put down defensive WC and TC enhancements helps the defense much more than allowing people to set aside characters to draw a few more cards helps offense. Therefore, the intro-prep phase DOES bring more balance to the game even with set-aside cards working.
someone needs to update the official rules to include set-asides.
+1
-
From a selfish standpoint I'd like to see set-asides work during intro prep also. I like drawing cards as much as anyone. If we allow it then you can pretty much gaurantee that I'll try to abuse it.
For the health of the Teams format I believe we should shy away from rules that empower speed decks so this doesn't become another version of T1-MP.
-
From a selfish standpoint I'd like to see set-asides work during intro prep also. I like drawing cards as much as anyone. If we allow it then you can pretty much gaurantee that I'll try to abuse it.
For the health of the Teams format I believe we should shy away from rules that empower speed decks so this doesn't become another version of T1-MP.
I agree. Besides, when would set-asides start counting? If I set aside my heroes with Pentecost during my intro-prep phase, would I get them back on my first turn? If not, then there's little difference I guess. If so, I don't like it.
-
Set-asides are counted during your upkeep so you'd get to draw from Pentecost, First Fruits & Feast of Trumpets on your very first turn.
-
For the health of the Teams format I believe we should shy away from rules that empower speed decks so this doesn't become another version of T1-MP.
I really don't see why this it would be so disastrous for set-asides to be allowed during intro-prep. Basically what we're saying is that if you draw Pentecost, then you would be able to draw the extra 3 cards on your first turn instead of your 2nd turn. Is that really that huge? Especially now that there are artifacts like Darius Decree and dominants like Mayhem that would even stop this speed plan from working.
I just don't see how getting a few cards 1 turn early can even compare to the benefit to site decks to be able to put initially drawn LSs in sites, or the benefit to all defenses of activating Unholy Writ or Unknown Nation or Confusion of Mind or Household Idols or many other artifacts that would severely hurt speed offenses.
-
two cookie cutter speed decks owned in Teams at Iowa state. I say no set-asides in the intro prep. I really hate speed. it's too good to avoid though.
-
Wait the combo was two speed decks? Like both players had speed? Interesting... I figured that wouldn't be very effective...
-
Wait the combo was two speed decks? Like both players had speed? Interesting... I figured that wouldn't be very effective...
+1 Of course the two players were both very good players anyway (Ring Wraith and Rawrlolsauce) so they could probably win using a variety of different decks. But I know that the champions of the OH state tournament in TEAMS won because they had more defense and were able to slow their opponents down enough to win in the final game.
-
we used defense. quite effectively, I might add.
speed decks actually worked really well. win in the first two turns. our competition was a bit off, as Gabe and Kevin (National champs at teams, if I remember right) were both there, but both had really young partners. Tim and Brian were toasted by SoG, NJ, AoCP, AoTL and a giant Captain band. I'm pretty sure three turns was the longest it took to win.
I do want to experiment with some defensive teams deck, but won't have a tournament to test it on.
so they could probably win using a variety of different decks.
we're gonna play Characterless at MN state. it'll win.
-
I agree with Prof. Underwood because i think that the rules need to be consistant (no matter who is gaining an advantage).
-
Is there an order for into prep? I know Tim Maly suggested that we should go in the order which we'll be taking our turns, but from what I've seen every just does it at the same time. I like Tim's idea tbh, because you have a massive advantage waiting until the last second to put your stuff down if there is no order. Two players might just refuse to admit they're done with into prep but refuse to play anything until the other does. This would cause a need for a time limit which will just cause abuse.
-
It's currently an unrestricted free-for-all. I'd like to see limits and order as well.
-
Actually, at the tournaments that I've played Teams in (State, Regionals, Nationals) We've understood the Intro-prep to be just a regular turn, in rotation, where you do nothign but a prep phase.
-
Thats how I played it all year (except maybe at IA State. I don't really remember IA state), but in Gabe's TEAMS summary he seemed to indicate otherwise. And beings there was three elders playing (Kevin Shride, Gabe Isbell, and Chris Bany), I'm thinking I might be wrong....
-
Is there an order for into prep?
Tim Maly and RDT are correct. The order for intro-prep is the same as for the 1st turn of the game. So whichever team gets to pick who starts also is deciding who will start the intro-prep phases. It is important to do them in order though because the actions of one player may affect the actions of other players who went before them.
For instance:
Player 1 turns on an artifact and sets aside some of the their heroes.
Player 2 turns and discards Darius Decree, therefore discarding those set aside heroes.
Player 3 turns on an artifact.
Player 4 turns on Captured Ark, therefore shuffling the artifact of players 1 & 3.
-
I have a question, Can u remove Doms from the game in this version, and are they treated as in the Discard Pile?
I'm asking for Philetus' effect, 'You may Remove a Good Card from the Game to protect Lost Souls from Rescue. (Except by a Hero of the same brigade)' are u still allowed to target Good Doms w/ this effect in Traditional Teams?
-
If you can remove it from the game in other events, you can also remove it from the game in TEAMS.
-
To further clarify, dominants aren't technically in the Land of Redemption. They are only put there to insure that you don't play multiples.
-
Guardian of Your Souls (Ap)
Type: Lamb • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Place this card in your Land of Redemption. Once there, redeemed Soul(s) in your Land of Redemption cannot Fall Away. • Errata: Place this card in your Land of Redemption. Protect redeemed Soul(s) in your Land of Redemption from Falling Away. • Identifiers: None • Verse: I Peter 2:25
just sayin'...
-
I think this is talking about 2 different things.
I believe that Mega was originally asking about removing the doms that are placed over by rescued LSs in the TEAMS category (to ensure that TEAMS don't play duplicates of doms) in order to fulfill the cost on Philetus. The answer to that is "yes" because those doms aren't technically in play, but rather in the discard pile. They are only displayed there for tracking purposes (and would continue to be even if they were "removed" from the game).
RW tried to clarify this with his answer, but brought up the Land of Redemption which threw off RTSmaniac, who thought of GoYS. This is a separate situation where a players own GoYS is actually played to the Land of Redemption and REALLY is there during a game. However, since Philetus targets cards that are in the discard pile, an active GoYS would not work to pay the cost.
-
I dislike the dominant rule in teams because it weakens Doubt. I can play mine, but my teammate can't play his? Sad face.
-
I figured I should re-bring this up in this thread...since that's kinda the purpose of this thread.
I would like to request a specific rule set for Teams play, if it isn't already under way. It is an official category and should have official rules. I can only imagine getting a ruling totally flipped at nationals because different judges rule differently.
How should dominants, artifacts, and set asides work in intro prep phase?
For the purposes of the 3 Liner, is the team considered the same player?
-
I figured I should re-bring this up in this thread...since that's kinda the purpose of this thread.
I would like to request a specific rule set for Teams play, if it isn't already under way. It is an official category and should have official rules. I can only imagine getting a ruling totally flipped at nationals because different judges rule differently.
How should dominants, artifacts, and set asides work in intro prep phase?
My understanding is that this is still ruled differently in different parts of the country. The intro-prep phase in most parts of the country allows anything that can happen during a regular prep-phase of a turn (including doms, arts, set-asides, etc.). However, in MN the intro-prep phase is a lot more limited. I'll try to start up a conversation about it on the other side of the boards, but that's the best I can tell you for now.
For the purposes of the 3 Liner, is the team considered the same player?
I'm pretty sure that no matter where you live, the 3-liner has to be rescued twice by the same PERSON, therefore the team would NOT be considered the same player.
-
My understanding is that this is still ruled differently in different parts of the country. The intro-prep phase in most parts of the country allows anything that can happen during a regular prep-phase of a turn (including doms, arts, set-asides, etc.). However, in MN the intro-prep phase is a lot more limited. I'll try to start up a conversation about it on the other side of the boards, but that's the best I can tell you for now.
Hence the:
I would like to request a specific rule set for Teams play, if it isn't already under way. It is an official category and should have official rules. I can only imagine getting a ruling totally flipped at nationals because different judges rule differently.
Glad to hear about the 3 liner. Such a boss lost soul.
Personally, I would like to allow for no abilities to be used in the intro prep phase. :2cents:
-
I figured I should re-bring this up in this thread...since that's kinda the purpose of this thread.
I would like to request a specific rule set for Teams play, if it isn't already under way. It is an official category and should have official rules. I can only imagine getting a ruling totally flipped at nationals because different judges rule differently.
How should dominants, artifacts, and set asides work in intro prep phase?
My understanding is that this is still ruled differently in different parts of the country. The intro-prep phase in most parts of the country allows anything that can happen during a regular prep-phase of a turn (including doms, arts, set-asides, etc.). However, in MN the intro-prep phase is a lot more limited. I'll try to start up a conversation about it on the other side of the boards, but that's the best I can tell you for now.
Glad to hear it. I'd love to know how to rule this sort of thing.
-
You should probably bring up the 3-liner, too, because I believe two elders ruled differently (Gabe and Kevin).