Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Noah on March 25, 2013, 12:31:32 PM
-
If I choose the blocker or create a side battle in teams, do I choose which opponent controls the defending/opposing character?
-
If I choose the blocker or create a side battle in teams, do I choose which opponent controls the defending/opposing character?
No, you get punished for using what is probably the most complicated special ability in the most complicated Redemption format.
But seriously, I'm not sure, but I would rule yes.
-
Wouldn't it be the same process for defenders deciding who is taking the block? (Person to left has first option or can pass to their teammate)
If the side battle is started while there is already a defender/attacker, then that defender/attacker controls that Team's side in the side battle.
If the side battle is started prior to there being a defender (Hidden Treasures, ET, etc) then I would rule the person to the left has the option to play the side battle or they can pass to their teammate.
-
I agree with Guardian. My understanding is that the "opponent" is always the next player in order at the table when there is no blocker yet in battle, unless the other team has the option to choose for themselves.
-
I only play teams at Nationals, but Kevin and I have used CTB multiple times. It was always ruled that if we active a CTB ability pre-block that we were allowed to choose which player controlled the blocker. I assume the same would be true of side battle abilities used pre-block.
-
I defer to Gabe as I have rarely competed in TEAMs events.
I would be curious as to why it was ruled that way as opposed to the way I described.
-
I would imagine that a key would be whether a card said that it chose the blocker (an EC in the game who would need someone to control them in battle) or chose the opponent (a player on the other team who would do the controlling).
-
You might be right, Mark. The first ruling we got was in Boston. It was for Obedience of Noah. Selecting the player who blocked was very relevant since we were running "The Crazy Chick" combo with Damsel and RBD.
I don't have access to cards atm. Does anyone know what OoN says?
-
527 ObedienceofNoah Obedience of Noah 3/2 Genesis 6:22 Blue HE Holder may choose the Evil Character that his opponent uses to block his rescue attempt. N
-
I think all choose the blocker cards say "choose the EC opponent uses..." Again, not knowing the specifics of TEAMs play, what is the ruling when a card refers to an "opponent"? If I use ET to play Shoes of Peace pre-block (Opponent must discard an evil card from hand or battle), who has to discard? Do I choose or does the opposing TEAM decide who is blocking and then at that point, that person becomes the opponent and must discard an evil card?
-
It's my understanding that in Teams, if a card specifies an opponent, then the controller of that card chooses which opponent they wish to target.
-
Is Gabe's understanding also yours Mark? I have not been ruling it that way all this time. I would like to know before I start getting rolling with tournaments because my kids like TEAMS.
-
It is my understanding is that if you play a card that says "opponent" after the other team has chosen who is blocking then it refers only to the player who is controlling the EC in battle.
If you play a card that says "opponent" before the other team has chosen who is blocking then you can pick either of the other team's players, but they still get to then chose who will actually block.
The reasoning behind this is that just because you attack with a hero that makes an opponent discard a card, you shouldn't be able to remove the other team's ability to choose who will play defense that turn.
Based on this, I think that CTB abilities should be able to choose which EC blocks, but should not be able to remove the other team's ability to choose which player defends. Does that seem fair to everyone?
-
Based on this, I think that CTB abilities should be able to choose which EC blocks, but should not be able to remove the other team's ability to choose which player defends. Does that seem fair to everyone?
I don't care for that interpretation. It significantly weakens CTB (which I understand you don't like), needlessly complicates the rules by adding an exception and goes against the standard ruling that I've gotten at both Boston and TN Nationals.
-
I don't care for that interpretation. It significantly weakens CTB (which I understand you don't like), needlessly complicates the rules by adding an exception and goes against the standard ruling that I've gotten at both Boston and TN Nationals.
Actually I don't mind CTB. It's a pretty fun little ability. However I think the other alternative is to expand the power of CTB beyond just choosing the EC (which is what it is supposed to do).
The first year I ran TEAMS at Nats (Columbus) we were playing with a modified rule for Doubt (to make it actually useful) and allowed people to play it directly into battle. But then some sneaky people tried to play it into battle "for" their opponent to stop their opponent from choosing who to block with. Basically they were trying to make a CTB card out of a card that was not a CTB card.
This has the same feel to me. It is turning cards that have one ability (ie. discard a card, or block with a certain EC) into a different ability that they shouldn't have (ie. decide which of your opponent team's players will block this turn).
My interpretation is much more similar to how CTB works in most multi-player games. I declare which LS I am trying to take, then I attack and play CTB pre-block. I can choose any EC on the table to actually block, but the person who has the LS still controls them. So my choosing the EC doesn't affect at all which player in the game controls the battle. This should work the same way. The CTB card chooses which EC is in the battle, but the opposing team would still get to choose who controls that EC.
Does it make more sense if you look at it that way?
-
I think TEAMS need to have an out for the issues that plague the other categories. The whole idea of TEAMS is to be able to work together. I don't see why a single SA should be able to completely stop that, and turn it into a boring category that a handful of people can manipulate.
-
My interpretation is much more similar to how CTB works in most multi-player games. I declare which LS I am trying to take, then I attack and play CTB pre-block. I can choose any EC on the table to actually block, but the person who has the LS still controls them. So my choosing the EC doesn't affect at all which player in the game controls the battle. This should work the same way. The CTB card chooses which EC is in the battle, but the opposing team would still get to choose who controls that EC.
I agree with this although in T1 it's not declaring which LS I am going for, (which would be Rescuer's Choice), but which player I am attacking. No matter which EC I choose, that player is the one who will control it.
-
My interpretation is much more similar to how CTB works in most multi-player games. I declare which LS I am trying to take, then I attack and play CTB pre-block. I can choose any EC on the table to actually block, but the person who has the LS still controls them. So my choosing the EC doesn't affect at all which player in the game controls the battle. This should work the same way. The CTB card chooses which EC is in the battle, but the opposing team would still get to choose who controls that EC.
I agree with this although in T1 it's not declaring which LS I am going for, (which would be Rescuer's Choice), but which player I am attacking. No matter which EC I choose, that player is the one who will control it.
Which is also has it is in Teams, and how it should remain. :)
-
That's the thing with TEAMs though, I'm not attacking a player, I'm attacking a team. If we ever did a Multi-TEAM format, and I attacked one team and chose a different team's EC to block, the defending team still controls the EC in the battle.
-
So are we all agreed then that a CTB ability chooses which EC the opposing team must block with, but does NOT force a specific member of that team to control that character?
-
So are we all agreed then that a CTB ability chooses which EC the opposing team must block with, but does NOT force a specific member of that team to control that character?
Still no.
-
What exactly is the cause for reservation. The only thing I can think of would be a desire to force a specific player (who you know cannot block you) into trying to block you. To me this defeats the purpose of TEAMS. I understand that the temptation is for some TEAMS to split one player as offense and the other as defense, and being able to force the "offense player" into blocking would be advantageous. Is there something else here that I am missing?
-
What exactly is the cause for reservation. The only thing I can think of would be a desire to force a specific player (who you know cannot block you) into trying to block you. To me this defeats the purpose of TEAMS.
This. I don't understand how CTB can override the game rules that operate for TEAMS and separate TEAMS games from any other type of game. And it seems so clearly to go against what TEAMS is about on defense: letting the players decide as a team who blocks.
Also, Justin's explanation makes the most sense to me.
-
I believe Gabe's reservation is mostly rooted in precedence (two years of Nats rulings). In my experience, precedence does not and should not always win out. This is especially true as Teams has undergone rule changes since its inception - not everything has been fleshed out since the beginning.
With that being said this is difficult because Teams is a completely different animal than all other plays due to dominant restrictions, shared fortresses (providing ways to share characters an enhancements) and common LoB.
Jusin's explanation makes the most sense and I believe the blockin Team gets to choose. I don't like that because it hurts strategies I like to use but I think it makes the most sense.
Kirk
-
I agree with Kirk
-
In case you guys weren't aware, this discussion is moot. Roy has already posted the rules for Teams at Nats this year and he has changed CTB.
-
In case you guys weren't aware, this discussion is moot. Roy has already posted the rules for Teams at Nats this year and he has changed CTB.
I thought the whole point of this Message Board was to make sure that hosts across the country were ruling the same way. Just saying that the Natz host decided to do it this way, oh well, is not accomplishing this. We all need to know what the ruling is and play according to those rules, no offense to Roy. If I host Natz, do I get to decide which rules apply and which ones don't?
-
We all need to know what the ruling is and play according to those rules
Fear not, I just checked the rules for TEAMS (http://www.angelfire.com/ok/furrow/teams-newrules.html) that Roy posted, and they seem to be completely in line with the standard rules for TEAM play that I've seen in the past.
-
You're missing the point. If it has been ruled differently at other Natz, and is still being ruling differently in parts of the country, then it is a problem.
-
And Roy's rules are different than what is listed in the official rules found in the tournament host guide.
-
I understand what you guys are saying, and I of course agree that the rules need to be the same everywhere. I'm just saying that I think Roy's rules are actually the right ones. There are multiple elders and REPs in this thread who have come to the same conclusion about CTB that Roy has.
I'm not sure why the tournament guide would have a different ruling other than the fact that it is an older/mistaken understanding. But that is how rulings always work. We think something for a while, and then someone brings up an issue with it and after thinking it through more we realize that it actually works slightly differently.
I think that the best thing to do at this point is to update the tournament guide and make sure that all the judges at Nats this summer know about it so that all of the rulings will be in agreement going forward.