Author Topic: Team Play Official Rules (Read 45272 times)

MrMiYoda · « **on:** September 19, 2009, 01:15:42 AM »

For the current, Team Play Official Rules, please use the Tournament Host Guide 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.

faithraider · « **Reply #1 on:** October 05, 2009, 11:39:19 AM »

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

Cameron the Conqueror · « **Reply #2 on:** October 05, 2009, 11:41:57 AM »

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"?

faithraider · « **Reply #3 on:** October 05, 2009, 11:52:23 AM »

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

mjwolfe · « **Reply #4 on:** October 05, 2009, 03:33:03 PM »

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

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #5 on:** October 05, 2009, 04:51:18 PM »

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).

lightningninja · « **Reply #6 on:** October 05, 2009, 04:56:55 PM »

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.

robm · « **Reply #7 on:** February 14, 2010, 11:03:16 AM »

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #8 on:** February 14, 2010, 09:47:58 PM »

Quote from: faithraider on October 05, 2009, 11:39:19 AM

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?

Sean · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2010, 09:22:00 PM »

The official rules for teams need to be in the tournament guide. When is this going to happen?

faithraider · « **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2010, 09:34:32 AM »

Please go to the website 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

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #11 on:** March 29, 2010, 10:17:09 AM »

Quote from: faithraider on March 29, 2010, 09:34:32 AM

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 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.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #12 on:** March 29, 2010, 10:20:18 AM »

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.

redemptioncousin · « **Reply #13 on:** March 29, 2010, 12:35:27 PM »

Quote from: Red Dragon Thorn on March 29, 2010, 10:20:18 AM

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.

TheMarti · « **Reply #14 on:** March 29, 2010, 02:33:51 PM »

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.

Sean · « **Reply #15 on:** March 29, 2010, 07:22:28 PM »

So...when are these "official" rules going to to be in the official tournament guide?

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2010, 11:15:11 PM »

Quote from: faithraider on March 29, 2010, 09:34:32 AM

Please go to the website 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?

CactusRob · « **Reply #17 on:** April 02, 2010, 08:38:25 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on March 30, 2010, 11:15:11 PM

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.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #18 on:** April 02, 2010, 10:11:15 AM »

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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #19 on:** April 02, 2010, 10:31:42 AM »

Quote from: RTSmaniac on April 02, 2010, 10:11:15 AM

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #20 on:** April 02, 2010, 03:36:03 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on April 02, 2010, 08:38:25 AM

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.

Quote from: CactusRob on April 02, 2010, 08:38:25 AM

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.

Quote from: CactusRob on April 02, 2010, 08:38:25 AM

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?

Perri · « **Reply #21 on:** April 04, 2010, 08:12:55 PM »

Quote

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.

CactusRob · « **Reply #22 on:** April 05, 2010, 10:41:11 AM »

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.

Professoralstad · « **Reply #23 on:** April 05, 2010, 12:15:33 PM »

Quote from: CactusRob on April 05, 2010, 10:41:11 AM

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.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #24 on:** April 05, 2010, 03:54:23 PM »

Quote from: Professoralstad on April 05, 2010, 12:15:33 PM

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?

News:

Author Topic: Team Play Official Rules (Read 45272 times)

TheMarti