Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Yes to both

Can you explain why please?

Because a site in your land of bondage is under your control.  If I take my opponent's site in 2 player and play it down, even though I don't own it, I still control it.

Because a site in your land of bondage is under your control.  If I take my opponent's site in 2 player and play it down, even though I don't own it, I still control it.

After posting I talked to RDT briefly and that is basically his logic as well, but we weren't able to talk in detail. I actually knew his answer before I posted the question because we were teammates last year. 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but trying to understand how you come to this conclusion. What part of the rules lead us to the conclusion that if a card ends up in your territory then you automatically control it?

You are correct that if you take a card you control it. That's the definition of "take" abilities - "you gain control of an opponent's card". Exchange is another example that by definition will change control.

In most of the situations I can think of where one player puts a card into another players territory there is no change in control. Granted, the only examples I've come up with all involve a "place" ability. Sites are slightly different because instead of placing them on another card we place another card on them.

There's nothing in the current REG that even defines how to use a Site. With no Sites in the I&J decks the 4th Edition rulebook isn't any help. To find anything written about how to use a Site we have to go clear back to the 10th Edition rulebook, which was written long before Teams existed. I'm not sure that's going to be helpful either.

Looking at the Teams rules (found in the Host Guide Appendix C), here's what I find that might be relevant:

"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 Type 1 game. Occupied sites are in the common land of bondage. Unoccupied sites return to the owner's territory."

"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)."

I can see how that second part could be interpreted to extend to Lost Souls and Sites, but that seems like quite a stretch from what is written. which leads to another question...

Based on your interpretation of how Sites work, do you also play that Lost Soul cards work for both teammates?

Example 1: Maggie has the Retribution Lost Soul in the shared LoB. Kyle plays Vain Philosophy on Grace. Does Kyle need to discard a card from his territory?

Example 2: Maggie has the Resurrection Lost Soul in the shared LoB. Teddy rescues it with Son of God (G deck so it's not negated). Do both Grace and Maggie get to search the discard pile for a Hero?

I'm not at all trying to say that anyone is right or wrong here. I'd just like to understand how you've come to the conclusion that you have. I'm often guilty of just remembering a ruling and not the logic behind it. That comes back to bite me sometimes, like it did today when I couldn't explain or justify how or why John and I both were able to activate FoA in Teams.

Derek and RDT, obviously as we clean up and clarify what is written in the rules (which clearly needs to be done) we have the privilege of making this work which ever way we believe is best. If there's a way that most players assume these things work then that's likely what we should make our standard. Most people aren't going to go digging through the REG, rulebook and host guide to figure this out.

I agree with almost all of this, but I wonder about one thing:

Quote from: Praeceps on January 02, 2016, 10:08:16 PM

In Gabe's example, when Grace or Maggie attack do Teddy and Kyle have to determine who will block before only the blocker can utilyze FoA's ability? Or can only the player initially attacked use it? Or can they both use it before determining who will block since it is in a shared LoB that is being attacked?

Both teammates can use it prior to deciding who gets to block.

I thought that in TEAMS, when it is your turn that you can make a rescue attempt/battle challenge, and immediately become the attacker.  However, I thought that it wasn't until AFTER one of your opponent's decided to block that they became the defender.

If that is true, then neither of your opponents is "personally" "being attacked" until they decide who is blocking.  Therefore I would think that they would decide who was blocking, then that person would be able to use FoA (because they are now "being attacked), and then they would continue the block by adding someone to battle or whatever.

Am I missing something here?

FoA isn't the first card of it's kind though. That's a ruling goes back to the first year Teams was official, way back in 2010, when Kevin and I won Nationals with a deck using Philistine Outpost.

Ah, I wondered if I was missing something.  Thanks for the memory jog.  I was aware of the Philly Outpost ruling, and had forgotten that it also says "you are attacked", which would refer to the player and not the team.  Good point.  Thanks.

So what about offensive cards that target "opponent" played pre-block?

I attack with solo Daniel and play Wickedness Removed off of Hidden Treasures. Do I get to reveal from both opponents' decks then?

No, I think that only works against the player that you declare your attack against, which, if true, would result in a state were simultaneous to Player A attacking Player B, only, we would also have Players B and D being attacked by Player A...

What about Ctb... If Ehud chooses an evil character from an opponent's territory is the owner of that evil character automatically blocking? Or can the block be passed to his partner?

Follow up questions:  1) Are you attacking the entire team and the block is decided among the team members?  2) Or are you attacking one person (the player to your right?) and the block is assumed or deferred? It makes a difference. If the team is attacked then FoA and PO fire away for both members. But if a member is attacked then only that member may use FoA or PO. The rulings here about PO and FoA being able to be used by both players suggests that the entire team is attacked.

Quote from: Prof Underwood on January 07, 2016, 01:18:51 AM

Am I missing something here?

You make a rescue attempt or battle challenge against a team, therefore you've attacked that team. The team then gets to choose which of the two players will block. In order to be given the choice to block, you must first have been attacked, which is what triggers cards like Fortress of Antonia.

TEAMS has not always functioned everywhere like this. Perhaps it has been played incorrectly but that's why I asked the questions. I agree with you though, to me it makes good sense.

Either way there's something not quite right here... In single player categories  everyone is their own master and Ehud functions precisely as his ability states. That opponent may then proceed to play enhancements on the chosen evil character because his right as a defender, within the rules, has been modified but not annihilated. He does not have the right to choose his evil character because that character has already been selected but there is nothing interfering with his right to play enhancements so he may. In teams it's obviously more complicated. I don't believe it is right to say that Ehud can choose who (as in a player) blocks but  only which evil character blocks, because that's what the card literally says. Only the evil character never player. You choose who you attack NOT Ehud. He shouldn't function differently in teams. In TEAMS choosing the defender happens after you are attacked and all hero's abilities complete. So it goes like this if you attack with Ehud: You choose that you are attacking the TEAM or player by placing Ehud in battle --> Ehud's ability completes and the evil character is chosen to block--> After all abilities have completed the player, who is by default being attacked, assumes his modified** role as a defender or defers it to his teammate OR the team is being attacked and the members choose who defends but not who blocks.
** Modified meaning Ehud chooses who they block with, taking away their right to choose the evil character.

Since Ehud specifically targets your "opponent's" Evil Character, which, according to the REG, is "during the Battle Phase ... the other player engaging you in battle," Ehud would choose a character from the territory of the player (or entity, I guess) that you attack. If we were to say that a player attacks a team then it would make sense that Ehud would get to choose an Evil Character from either player's territory and then, because Ehud chooses your opponent's Evil Character, then controller of that character would have to be "the other player engaging [Ehud] in battle." I'm not entirely sure if my question was answered about Wickedness Removed, but by using the same logic as the Ehud scenario, we can conclude that the attacker could choose which player to target and thus choose the player who is then forced to battle against them. However since you still technically attack the team then both players could trigger Fortress of Antonia. I, along with those who already said so, am not a huge fan of getting to choose the player you attack.

So, an alternative, which has been mentioned briefly, is that each player would only attack the player to their left (or to the right, doesn't make much difference) and then the defending team collaboratively decides if the person attacked wants to pass the block to their teammate. The main problem with this is that the order of operations would then be screwed up. It could work where once the attacker declares a rescue attempt then your opponents decide who is blocking (being "attacked"), and then the Hero, site, Artifact, etc. abilities would activate in normal order before the Evil Character blocks. This seems reasonable so that Ehud would have to choose an Evil Character from, and Wickedness Removed would target, the player who is being "attacked," but Heroes that band or search would get to wait until they know who they're going up against to use their ability. If one opponent has a black defense and the other has brown then Jacob could attack and then wait to see who would be blocking before playing RTC or banding to Captain. In any other category, that's generally how it goes anyway. You always know which player you're going up against when you attack, but in TEAMS I think part of the strategy is not knowing, so doing it this way would certainly change that up.

Would you guys interpret things differently? Which do you like better? Any other alternatives/tweaks to these?