Cactus Game Design Message Boards

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

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.

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.  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)

Gabe did mention that Storehouse worked... but Z's Temple didn't...why?

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.

If that is really what happened, then I am confused by this post:

Quote from: Prof Underwood on April 02, 2010, 03:36:03 PM

Quote

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.

"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?

So does Wall of Protection protect your characters and your teammates characters?

We need to know.

Sauce, we need to edit our decks with this new info.

Did you eliminate the impossible? Or did you just jump straight to the improbable?

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.

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.