Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I think that Redemption is long overdue for a Teams event. Playing with a partner is really fun. The teamwork aspect of teams is another cool aspect that isn't really present in the tournament scene today. I think a set of rules could be put together that allow players to use their T1 decks without modification so that anybody could play. That being said, here are the potential problems I see with Teams being officially sanctioned.

1. If it was included in RNRS, it would be difficult to keep track of individual players. It would also be difficult to play with the same partner all year, so ranking each team would be difficult as well.
2. Creating and enforcing table talk rules is very difficult, especially when two people are working together. I think that teammates would have to be allowed to either speak openly about the contents of their hand/facedown cards in order to decide who blocks.
3. Score to win/amount of dominants is also something to be considered. The 1 copy of each dominant per team, play to 5 format that we used last year worked well. Since this would be a new category, maybe it could be experimented with playing to 6 to make getting New Jerusalem less potent.
4. Splitting prizes between teammates would make it the least-lucrative category.
5. Team games require 4 people, this makes it more difficult to find the right amount of people than for a multi-player category. For example, what if you have 2 teams + 1 extra person that would like to play but doesn't have a partner?

Anyway, I'm posting this here to get your thoughts on the subject. I'd like to hear from people that have played Teams in the past. What did you like? What did you dislike?

I'd also like some input from Playtesters and/or Rob. What would it take to make Teams an official category? Would it have to replace a different category? Could it be like booster draft was the first year, optional instead of another category*?

*Booster draft replaced Sealed Deck Multi-Player. The first year it was available hosts had the option of choosing either SDMP or BD.

I'vw never play teams so my opinion will just be in my mind

1. If it was included in RNRS, it would be difficult to keep track of individual players. It would also be difficult to play with the same partner all year, so ranking each team would be difficult as well.

I would suggest that you're team would get the same amount of RNRS and any multi-type game and then they are split in half between the two.  I think it would also help if, for teams, you combine the first and second RNRS points and then split them between the teammates (so those who actually care about RNRS point would still have a chance to gain a good amount of points instead of just half of first place).

2. Creating and enforcing table talk rules is very difficult, especially when two people are working together. I think that teammates would have to be allowed to either speak openly about the contents of their hand/facedown cards in order to decide who blocks.

You could always lean over and whisper to them (since you would be sitting next to them).

3. Score to win/amount of dominants is also something to be considered. The 1 copy of each dominant per team, play to 5 format that we used last year worked well. Since this would be a new category, maybe it could be experimented with playing to 6 to make getting New Jerusalem less potent.

I think it would be interesting to bump it up to six.

4. Splitting prizes between teammates would make it the least-lucrative category.

Again, you could combine the first and second place prizes and then split them up.

5. Team games require 4 people, this makes it more difficult to find the right amount of people than for a multi-player category. For example, what if you have 2 teams + 1 extra person that would like to play but doesn't have a partner?

Tiss a problem.

Another problem I can see is when to have the event during the district and up tournaments.  It is a good idea to have it optional for the first year but then if it becomes official and required to have, when would you have it?  Would you have to add a Friday night event to cover this (which wouldn't be kind to out of towners (unless you want to house them)).

Michael Wolfe and I were discussing this yesterday at SW Regionals.  Neither of us would be opposed to offering this as an option instead of multi-player next tournament year, similar to how we offered Booster Draft as an option instead of Sealed deck multiplayer as a trial for one year.  Teams split prizes, so that it doesn't cost Cactus any more this year.

Your last concern is also easily dealt with: players bring their own partners ahead of time, and you always offer another category as an option during teams in case their partner doesn't show or they can't find one.

3. Score to win/amount of dominants is also something to be considered. The 1 copy of each dominant per team, play to 5 format that we used last year worked well. Since this would be a new category, maybe it could be experimented with playing to 6 to make getting New Jerusalem less potent.

are multiple copies of the same card (besides dominants) allowed between both decks? for example, can both decks have an aoc promo, unholy writ, etc? if so, games should be played to 8 lost souls.

Question: are Teams being played unofficially at this year's nats, and how closely do this year's rules map the ones Prof laid out last year?

It looks like teams will be offered again this year at Nationals as one of the extra events and so far the rules are very similar to the rules that Prof Underwood used last year.

Mike

Most of the registered attendees have preferred that we hold the extra events on Thursday and/or Friday evenings. So we will not have the extra events on Wednesday. There should be more details available in about a week, but this should help people plan a little better.

Mike

MKC, last year the rules for doubles were as follows.

Each person can have a copy of any  card in their deck, similar to T1. However, dominants were only allowed to be played once per team. So both players on the team could have Son of God and New Jerusalem, but only one of them could play them. This made it so players had to make an objective decision on whether it was better to only have 1 copy per team or to have 2 copies and one player would end up with less-useful cards.

Playing to 5 worked well last year since essentially there was the same number of dominants as T1, but twice as many characters/enhancements.

Guardian, playing T2 teams could be fun as well but I've never tried it so I don't know how much better it would be than T2 MP.

i just find it problematic that a team could be swept easily by the amount of instant offensive battle winners there are in the game, especially in duplicate. yes, an argument could be there is twice as much defense to work with as well, but its common knowledge that offensive cards have always been slightly more powerful than defensive ones. which is why i suggested rescue to 8...combine the total amount of lost souls needed for 2 players, minus 2 for sog/nj. 8 could be a bit long though, so perhaps 7 or 6 would be more adequate. i also think allowing only 1 copy of a card with a special ability per team would encourage more diverse and creative deck building. if this rule isnt implemented for t1, it should be for the t2 version. i know in the mtg two-headed dragon (2v2 teams) format, each team is only allowed to retain up to the cap of a particular card in both of their decks...which is 4. so, perhaps in redemption each team can only have say, 5 aoc promo's total between both of their decks. 10 total aoc promos could be pretty devestating... -_-

i kind of figured it would be a given that time was bumped up...i suppose not.

If we bumped it more than 5 Lost Souls more time would be needed.  Ben and I have never had a game timeout in two successful years as partners, but if we had to get to 6 or 7, we probably would have.

I do think this would be a great category to offer in place of T1 Multi.

Kirk

dont more people play t1 multi rather than t2 multi...?

That is more determined by not as many players having collections to build t2 decks than anything else, in my experience.

Kirk

That is more determined by not as many players having collections to build t2 decks than anything else, in my experience.

Kirk

well, my point is shouldnt t2 multi be dropped in lieu of 2v2?

Quote from: Master KChief on June 28, 2009, 11:20:04 PM

well, my point is shouldnt t2 multi be dropped in lieu of 2v2?

Only if you want to really tick off T2 players

However, if it could be an option for hosts to replace T2-mp with, then I think that people would be happy with that.

well i gather you would tick off far more t1mp players. the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few

In some playgroups T2 multi is way more popular.  So I would agree that the host should determine what is best for the playgroup.

Kirk