Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I don't know that split decks will be that much better. Just seems long and grueling imo, especially after type 2 multi. Personally I would rather do type 2 sealed instead at least that way you don't have to see the same cards for three straight catagories. Musical decks would be cool too.

Remember everybody thought Type 2 teams would be unworkable and would take forever with regular decks.

Remember also we are starting teams after 3 rounds of multi, so you don't have to play. There will be other games to play also.

Remember this is experimental. We didn't limit sites in type 2 sealed so Alex could beat Gabe.

Remember Matt's a reasonable guy(?) I'm sure the rules will be tweeked a bit be for the tournament. Thats why he posted them. So give him your feedback. Maybe each deck should be required to have half of the lost souls and half the dominants.

Remember their will be alot of creative minds at the tournament. Why not see who can come up with the best killer combo within the rule. Someone else will figure that out and build a counter deck.

Remember winning team has to buy at Perkins and has to ride with me through the roundabouts to get there.

Can Lost Souls redistribute?

No. During a game Lost Souls would not re-distribute. Players could sleeve their shard of the deck differently if they would like.


Note--the actual format of T2-TEAMS is open for discussion, which is why I asked for suggestions...  Let's keep in mind the goals:

1) We have played T2-Booster and T2-Sealed in the past. There were multiple requests for the past couple of years to try T2-TEAMS, so that's why we are here now.

2) We want to make T2-TEAMS a TEAMS event with a distinct T2 flavor (just like T2-Booster and T2-Sealed

3) We want T2-TEAMS to be fun.

Comments on the comments so far...

I think T2 Teams should have the same format as T1 Teams: Both players in a team build decks that match the regular T2 deck building rules, including all Lost Souls (with a shared LoB).

Given that tables of four regularly timeout at 1 1/2 hours in T2-MP how long do you think a game like this would take, Chronic? Four hours? Longer? I just do not believe this is feasible.

This rule, imo, just screams break me. I think everyone remembers the lack of site cap last year. I think an equal distribution of cards would be best.

Low blow, Hobbit.    The only way site lock would work was if some player traded his sites to his opponent. Since this was T2, I assumed no n00bs would be playing.  My bad.

I was totally going to build that Zeb deck... And probably just dominate with it.

And I was expecting you to build that Zeb deck--simply because it is a completely obvious strategy--so my deck would have multiple copies of Watchful Servant and ways to get him out. You deck out in turn one with seven lost souls available, and either me or my partner (depending who is sitting on your right) are coming in for a free rescue every time.

I completely agree that rule 5 screams out "Please abuse me." I tried to counter that with rule #9, but the consensus seems to be that it will not be enough. So--if we want to try to meet the three goals at the tops--our choices are really three-fold...

1) We scrap deck splitting entirely. If we go this route, you need to provide some way to ensure that the majority of games can be completed in 1 1/2 hours or so (allowing three rounds),

2) We scrap rule #5 (and #9 since it is no longer needed without #5), and come up with some other way to split the decks. I tend to agree with the Hobbit that this will most likely lead to games that feel like you are wading through molasses--so you need to provide some way to minimize the slog effect.

3) We keep rule #5 but provide additional or a better counters to SDCS (i.e., skinny deck combo syndrome). What about replacing #9 with a rule that says when a player decks out he may no longer make a rescue attempt?

Thoughts/ideas/comments?  I'm really not married to anything beyond the three goals at the top.

Erm...

If this is Teams then my teammate will simply block for me...... Thus why the Zeb deck works.....

Erm...

Not unless your teammate has a supply of defenders with a toughness of 0 or less... Believe it or not, I am not so addlepated that I didn't recognize the obvious*...

9) For SA (and Identifiers) that activate before a blocker is presented, the word "opponent" and "opponent's" refer to the player against whom the initial rescue attempt is being made. This identification remains in effect until a blocker is presented.

Actually, the idea that your "opponent" does not change when the opposing TEAM passes the block until an actual blocker is presented is one that would improve regular TEAMS as well. That is, however, another discussion for another day.

*Don't get me wrong. I recognize that I am addlepated**--I am just saying that I am not *that* addlepated.

**I always assumed the first use of the word "addlepated" on these boards would be in a post talking about CountFount.

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on February 29, 2012, 12:00:19 AM

Erm...

If this is Teams then my teammate will simply block for me...... Thus why the Zeb deck works.....

Erm...

Not unless your teammate has a supply of defenders with a toughness of 0 or less... Believe it or not, I am not so addlepated that I didn't recognize the obvious*...

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on February 27, 2012, 11:45:50 PM

9) For SA (and Identifiers) that activate before a blocker is presented, the word "opponent" and "opponent's" refer to the player against whom the initial rescue attempt is being made. This identification remains in effect until a blocker is presented.

Actually, the idea that your "opponent" does not change when the opposing TEAM passes the block until an actual blocker is presented is one that would improve regular TEAMS as well. That is, however, another discussion for another day.

*Don't get me wrong. I recognize that I am addlepated**--I am just saying that I am not *that* addlepated.

**I always assumed the first use of the word "addlepated" on these boards would be in a post talking about CountFount.

Addlepated- from the Greek- syn. Back stabber.
1) A term used for a team mate that bails out to protect oneself from defeat or to inflict defeat on his once best buddy who always had his back.

i.e. Matt "addlepated" Craig at Nats for a "prior appointment".

Quote from: Chronic Apathy on February 29, 2012, 10:53:39 AM

Teams and multiplayer are entirely different beasts, and a lot of T1 Teams games end up being shorter than regular T12P games depending on the circumstances. T2 Teams would almost certainly be shorter than T2MP would be.

Not in MN.

Type 1 and Type 2 are entirely different beasts. After playing type 2 sealed and type 2 booster draft, the overwhelming belief of the best type 2 players in the world was that teams would be unworkable because of time.

I never said that.

Quote from: CountFount on February 29, 2012, 10:58:29 AM

Addlepated- from the Greek- syn. Back stabber.
1) A term used for a team mate that bails out to protect oneself from defeat or to inflict defeat on his once best buddy who always had his back.
i.e. Matt "addlepated" Craig at Nats for a "prior appointment".

And we sure showed him and taught him a lesson by losing three straight games after he addlepated.

In recognition of his "addlepation" Maybe we can give him a Judas Iscariot card... Unlimited edition

I've so moved on, I've got much better ideas for wrecking people.

I've so moved on, I've got much better ideas for wrecking people.

-and-

I think I may have just broke Type 2 TEAMS. Carry on 

Maybe you two smarty pants should consider devoting your time to making suggestions for better TEAMS rules.   




I would have so used the kissy emoticon if it were still available,

Says the Elder. 

How do you think I got this status

They figured if I was entrusted with upholding the rules, I wouldn't try to break them anymore.

Muahahaha, this sounds like fun. Totally going to play ANB to screw my opponent's over just as we switch.

Would captured characters of your opponent's move with you, seeing as it's in your LoB?

I'm a big fan of T2Swap instead of T2Teams.

I don't have everything hashed out yet - But the basic idea is that everybody builds a deck, then randomly gets paired with a different deck. Somehow we would need to eliminate the want to simply build a terrible deck, but besides that, it could be fun.


EDIT:

Actually, I remembered the setup that I wanted.

So basically, everybody comes with a deck - You'd have to institute a rule so that the decks are actually good - Then you set up the first pairings. Play a game. Then, rotate half the decks 1 slot to the left, and half the players to the right - Keep score for both the deck, and the player that won the game.

Could be interesting to see the top player, and the top deckbuilder essentially.