Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Official Rules & Errata => Ruling Questions => Topic started by: Professoralstad on February 03, 2010, 11:13:25 PM
-
I will be particpating in my first ever TEAMS tournament on Saturday, and I just wanted an idea of how some things work:
1. The rules say that teammates can discuss strategies openly.
a) Does that mean if a team member gets to look at an opponent's hand/cards in deck, etc. because of an SA, he can tell his teammate what's in it?
b) Can you pass your hand to your teammate so that he knows what you have without informing the opponents?
c) If the answer to b) is no, are "signals" allowed between teammates (i.e. "Blue, 65; Silver, 10!" would mean "put down your Captain so I can attack next turn with the Jacob in my hand")
2. The words "your(s)", "opponent's"
a) If a card says "your hand/deck/territory/discard pile, could I choose which of us gets the effect? For example, if I activate Chariot of Fire, could I get my teammate's heroes out? Could I add them to my draw pile if I want?
b) If a card says "your next turn" or something to that effect, is that my next turn, or my teammate's if he is next in line?
c) If a card says "do X to each opponent" do I do it to both of my opponents, or do I choose one to do X to?
3. Character passing
a) Say my teammate and I have the same unique character in our territories. Can I put my copy of the character in a Fortress (such as Goshen/KotW) even though my teammate would then have two copies in "his" territory (as fortresses are shared)?
That's all for now. I might think of more later.
-
1. The rules say that teammates can discuss strategies openly.
a) Does that mean if a team member gets to look at an opponent's hand/cards in deck, etc. because of an SA, he can tell his teammate what's in it?
Yes, but he must say it out loud.
b) Can you pass your hand to your teammate so that he knows what you have without informing the opponents?
Nope, but you can read every card in your hand out loud.
c) If the answer to b) is no, are "signals" allowed between teammates (i.e. "Blue, 65; Silver, 10!" would mean "put down your Captain so I can attack next turn with the Jacob in my hand")
I don't think there is anything against this, and there were code words being used by Red Dragon Thorn at nationals and that was allowed.
2. The words "your(s)", "opponent's"
a) If a card says "your hand/deck/territory/discard pile, could I choose which of us gets the effect? For example, if I activate Chariot of Fire, could I get my teammate's heroes out? Could I add them to my draw pile if I want?
Yes... but you must choose one, not both.
b) If a card says "your next turn" or something to that effect, is that my next turn, or my teammate's if he is next in line?
I'm not sure about this but I believe, once again, you could choose.
c) If a card says "do X to each opponent" do I do it to both of my opponents, or do I choose one to do X to?
If it says "each opponent," then yea I think you can do it to both of your opponents. Did I misunderstand this question?
3. Character passing
a) Say my teammate and I have the same unique character in our territories. Can I put my copy of the character in a Fortress (such as Goshen/KotW) even though my teammate would then have two copies in "his" territory (as fortresses are shared)?
Hm... I don't think so for the reason you mentioned... I"m not sure about this one though.
-
c) If a card says "do X to each opponent" do I do it to both of my opponents, or do I choose one to do X to?
If it says "each opponent," then yea I think you can do it to both of your opponents. Did I misunderstand this question?
Basically what I'm saying is, if I play a card that says: "discard a card from each opponent's hand". Is the opposing TEAM my opponent (since a card that says opponent can be applied to either player) or is each player on that TEAM an opponent? I would assume that "each opponent"="each player on opposing TEAM" but I wanted to make sure.
-
1. The rules say that teammates can discuss strategies openly.
a) Does that mean if a team member gets to look at an opponent's hand/cards in deck, etc. because of an SA, he can tell his teammate what's in it?
b) Can you pass your hand to your teammate so that he knows what you have without informing the opponents?
c) If the answer to b) is no, are "signals" allowed between teammates (i.e. "Blue, 65; Silver, 10!" would mean "put down your Captain so I can attack next turn with the Jacob in my hand")
I would like an official ruling on the extent to which table talk is allowed. To my way of seeing Prof Underwood and Wolfe pere no one would be authorities in addition to the normal crew.
2. The words "your(s)", "opponent's"
a) If a card says "your hand/deck/territory/discard pile, could I choose which of us gets the effect? For example, if I activate Chariot of Fire, could I get my teammate's heroes out?
Yes. You can choose either your discard pile or your partner's discard pile to riffle through.
Could I add them to my draw pile if I want?
No. Owners remain owners.
b) If a card says "your next turn" or something to that effect, is that my next turn, or my teammate's if he is next in line?
The next turn of the first teammate in order. Even if this is bad for you.
c) If a card says "do X to each opponent" do I do it to both of my opponents, or do I choose one to do X to?
Both. If the card says "do X to your opponent" you get to pick which opponent to do X to.
3. Character passing
a) Say my teammate and I have the same unique character in our territories. Can I put my copy of the character in a Fortress (such as Goshen/KotW) even though my teammate would then have two copies in "his" territory (as fortresses are shared)?
No. Unique character rules are still in effect.
Instaposted by ln.
-
Woops, didn't see the second part of the Chariot of Fire question. Yes, you can choose your teammate, but he would shuffle them into his deck.
Prof, are you sure about the "your next turn" question? I figured you could choose... it seems to make sense and fits the "your" is you or your teammate rule.
-
Code talking is not only allowed, it's the best part!
Jeremy and I had a ton of fun confusing our opponents at Natz. making up things on the fly was great too.
"I've got a big bear"
"What?"
"The bike rider is in the house"
"Oh!"
(King of Tyrus)
-
Prof, are you sure about the "your next turn" question? I figured you could choose... it seems to make sense and fits the "your" is you or your teammate rule.
I'm not sure. I figure if I'm wrong someone will correct me. The I can argue with the person for a dozen pages or so and make this an epic thread.
Your answer sounds pretty good to me, so I'm probably wrong. Want to fight about it?
-
Prof, are you sure about the "your next turn" question? I figured you could choose... it seems to make sense and fits the "your" is you or your teammate rule.
No I'm not sure, which is why I asked. :D
-
Wow EmJayBee... you didn't even correct the fact that (I just realized) you are NOT prof... :D.
EDIT: but prof did. ;)
Also, your post made me seriously laugh out loud. And sure, why not? And I put $5 on my position.
-
Good questions.
Everyone's answers to questions 1 and 3 are correct.
Everyone's answers to questions 2a and 2c are also correct.
That just leaves 2b which is the one that people are disagreeing on.
2b or not 2b, that is the question. Whether tis nobler.....
Anyway, I agree with LN on this one. "Yours" means owned and controlled by you or your teammate, and is chosen at the time that the ability happens. So you could choose your teammate's next turn, or your next turn, but then you can't change your mind later depending on what happens.
-
As it turns out, the code languages everyone comes up with to communicate with their teammate is one of the funnest parts of teams.
2A - You can choose which ONE of you gets the effect, but it must be a single choice for all abilities on the card. You can't choose the "your" in "your rescue attempt" to be you, but then choose the "your" in "your heroes" to be your teammate's. For Chariot of Fire, after your rescue attempt you can't get your teammates heroes out, but during your teammate's turn, Chariot is still active and now applies to him because of the "your" rule, but he can only get heroes out of his discard pile.
2B - You can choose which ONE of you gets to be "your" in your next turn, but you have to decide when its played and it can still only be used once.
2C - Any time the word "opponent", "opponent's", or "opponents'" is used it means ONE of the players on the other team and you get to choose who it is. It never means both players on the other team. An analogy that helps understand these issues is that teams is like 2-player where the other "player" is the other team. I suppose if we ever came up with a multi-teams event, then do "X" to each opponent would allow you to do "X" to one member of each opposing team. But since there's only one opposing team in the current teams event, you can only do "X" to ONE of the opposing teammates.
Mike
-
Anyway, I agree with LN on this one. "Yours" means owned and controlled by you or your teammate, and is chosen at the time that the ability happens. So you could choose your teammate's next turn, or your next turn, but then you can't change your mind later depending on what happens.
2B - You can choose which ONE of you gets to be "your" in your next turn, but you have to decide when its played and it can still only be used once.
What do you guys know about TEAMS? I modified my original post--you no longer count as authorities. Only Shride, Berkenpas, The Schaef, SirNobody, Bryon, and Rob will do.
Wanna fight?
-
Wanna fight?
Nah, but I'm disappointed you didn't run with my Hamlet quote :)
-
This thread is provocative.
-
Here's another few regarding "your":
If a card has an implied "your", such as "search deck for X" can I choose my teammate's deck to search for X? Or only if the card says "search your deck"?
If I play Great Faith [Exchange this enhancement with another good enhancement in your draw pile (you may place in hand or in battle). Shuffle draw pile after exchange.] and choose my teammate's deck, can I put the card into battle, even though my teammate cannot play enhancements for me? And since it says "you may place in hand" does that "you" mean that my teammate places it in his hand, or do I? I would assume his, to be consistent with CoF.
I know I am inexperienced in team play, but I have to ask: why did the "your=you or teammate" rule come into being? It seems to cause a lot of confusing situations (like the ones I've presented). I would say that "your" should refer to anything that you personally own and control, and anything that is shared (your sites, fortresses+contents, LoR, LoB= you or your teammate's sites, fortresses, LoR, LoB). But anything else, my teammate's deck, discard pile, heroes or EC's in territory, could not be targeted by a card that says "your".
I guess I shouldn't complain (and I'm not really, I just like the reasons behind rulings) until I try it, I'm just looking for a reason why we should add that kind of complexity. What are the ultimate benefits of it?
Also a small part of me is trying to get MJB's fight started...so, Prof U, go ahead and "take arms against MY sea of troubles". What now? ;)
-
I agree with Prof... when we decided to embark upon this teams venture back in (2004??? whatever the nats in NY was...) it was meant to simply be Redemption with partners, holding to as many rules as possible.
This whole you/your thing complexifies a game that should be extremely simple (at least compared to 2P Redemption as it is). Why can't you simply be you and your partner be your partner...
If real rules ever get set for this category, this could quite possibly be the best category Redemption has to offer. Making it work differently only encourages massive "combo decks" and creates unnecessary arguments about how otherwise simple cards work. I feel like we have enough arguments just in the basic game... why add more???
-
If a card has an implied "your", such as "search deck for X" can I choose my teammate's deck to search for X? Or only if the card says "search your deck"?
I don't think an implied "your" counts... I also don't think you can take a card out of your teammates draw pile, even if it does say "your..." there must be a rule on this.
If I play Great Faith [Exchange this enhancement with another good enhancement in your draw pile (you may place in hand or in battle). Shuffle draw pile after exchange.] and choose my teammate's deck, can I put the card into battle, even though my teammate cannot play enhancements for me? And since it says "you may place in hand" does that "you" mean that my teammate places it in his hand, or do I? I would assume his, to be consistent with CoF.
Once again I think there MUST be a rule that says you can't take cards from your teammate's draw pile... or I can see this starting to get broken.
I know I am inexperienced in team play, but I have to ask: why did the "your=you or teammate" rule come into being? It seems to cause a lot of confusing situations (like the ones I've presented). I would say that "your" should refer to anything that you personally own and control, and anything that is shared (your sites, fortresses+contents, LoR, LoB= you or your teammate's sites, fortresses, LoR, LoB). But anything else, my teammate's deck, discard pile, heroes or EC's in territory, could not be targeted by a card that says "your".
This is an excellent question. But I don't have the answer to this one, unfortunately.
-
If a card has an implied "your", such as "search deck for X" can I choose my teammate's deck to search for X? Or only if the card says "search your deck"?
I don't think an implied "your" counts... I also don't think you can take a card out of your teammates draw pile, even if it does say "your..." there must be a rule on this.
Well if my CoF can get my teammate's heroes out, then why wouldn't my card be able to get a card from my teammate's draw pile? Even if I have to place it in my teammate's hand?
I know I am inexperienced in team play, but I have to ask: why did the "your=you or teammate" rule come into being? It seems to cause a lot of confusing situations (like the ones I've presented). I would say that "your" should refer to anything that you personally own and control, and anything that is shared (your sites, fortresses+contents, LoR, LoB= you or your teammate's sites, fortresses, LoR, LoB). But anything else, my teammate's deck, discard pile, heroes or EC's in territory, could not be targeted by a card that says "your".
This is an excellent question. But I don't have the answer to this one, unfortunately.
I'm hoping someone does. I'm not looking for anything to be changed yet, just explained (and maybe changed at a later point if there is no real explanation). But coming from a point of view where simpler rules are better rules, I think it is certainly something worthy of consideration.
-
If a card has an implied "your", such as "search deck for X" can I choose my teammate's deck to search for X? Or only if the card says "search your deck"?
Don't be silly, Rabbit. We have enough problems as it is with things that are actually written on cards to start messing around with things that aren;t written. Even guys itching for a fight--such as myself--shy away from the amount of havoc that would be wreaked upon the boards by an "implied" anything rule.
If I play Great Faith [Exchange this enhancement with another good enhancement in your draw pile (you may place in hand or in battle). Shuffle draw pile after exchange.] and choose my teammate's deck, can I put the card into battle, even though my teammate cannot play enhancements for me?
I don't think you should be allowed to add cards to your partners deck by any means fair or foul. In a practical sense you and your partner would have to have identical sleeves so that it isn't obvious which card is yours during play. And if it isn't obvious which card is yours during play, how can your opponents be assured both team members have legal decks at the start of the next round?
-
If a card has an implied "your", such as "search deck for X" can I choose my teammate's deck to search for X? Or only if the card says "search your deck"?
Don't be silly, Rabbit. We have enough problems as it is with things that are actually written on cards to start messing around with things that aren;t written. Even guys itching for a fight--such as myself--shy away from the amount of havoc that would be wreaked upon the boards by an "implied" anything rule.
I'm not arguing that there should be an implied "your", as there definitely is. The "your" has to be implied in order to prevent me from searching any deck, or searching the land of deck (which is what the grammar would say without an implied "your"). It's interesting that a word that was excluded merely for the saving of a bit of space on a card could make such a difference.
If I play Great Faith [Exchange this enhancement with another good enhancement in your draw pile (you may place in hand or in battle). Shuffle draw pile after exchange.] and choose my teammate's deck, can I put the card into battle, even though my teammate cannot play enhancements for me?
I don't think you should be allowed to add cards to your partners deck by any means fair or foul. In a practical sense you and your partner would have to have identical sleeves so that it isn't obvious which card is yours during play. And if it isn't obvious which card is yours during play, how can your opponents be assured both team members have legal decks at the start of the next round?
I'm not saying that. Cards by default go to the owner's draw piles, so that I could get an enhancement from my teammate's deck, and put GF back into mine. This was discussed in a thread where my opponent wanted to use my Philly Armorbearer to search for his TFG (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17608.msg277755#msg277755). It was ruled he could (at least by Justin, who I'm guessing had it right since there where no dissenting opinions), but that PAB would still go to my deck/discard pile. I don't see how this would be different.
-
I'll give a shot at answering the question about "your". I think the idea was that you can target you and your teammates characters so that you could work as a team and protect each others characters or give them a boost with Elijah's Mantle, etc. It has gotten a bit confusing when looking at how that applies to other things though.
I think this can be worked out but I agree that it isn't yet and needs to be.
I think that "each opponent" should let you target both opponent's on the opposing team.
-
I'll give a shot at answering the question about "your". I think the idea was that you can target you and your teammates characters so that you could work as a team and protect each others characters or give them a boost with Elijah's Mantle, etc. It has gotten a bit confusing when looking at how that applies to other things though.
I kind of assumed that's the type of thing it was intended for, however, I'd bet that a cost/benefit analysis would reveal that the costs (complicated situations involving cards like the ones mentioned) outweigh the benefits.
So here's my proposed definition, which still allows for a TEAM to have quite a bit of interaction without as many complicated scenarios:
When a card you control says "your" it refers to all of the cards you own and control, and all of the locations and cards that you and your teammate share (Fortresses + contents, LoB, and LoR).
I don't expect this change to occur in the next two days, but I think that maybe it could be a positive eventual step to making TEAMS a better category.
All that said, I am very much looking forward to participating in the tournament on Saturday. It should be great fun!
-
So here's my proposed definition, which still allows for a TEAM to have quite a bit of interaction without as many complicated scenarios:
When a card you control says "your" it refers to all of the cards you own and control, and all of the locations and cards that you and your teammate share (Fortresses + contents, LoB, and LoR).
You are off to a fine start here in the brawl-inducing sentiment department. Now all you need to do is close it out with some fighting words like...
And if you don't agree with me you can go soak your head.
I don't expect this change to occur in the next two days, but I think that maybe it could be a positive eventual step to making TEAMS a better category.
All that said, I am very much looking forward to participating in the tournament on Saturday. It should be great fun!
Ooooooooo. So close.
-
And if you don't agree with me you can go soak your head.
"Aw, go soak your fat head."
"Are you asking for a challenge?!"
"Yessir. Yessir I am." (http://www.homestarrunner.com/20x6vs1936.html)[/spam]
-
So here's my proposed definition, which still allows for a TEAM to have quite a bit of interaction without as many complicated scenarios:
When a card you control says "your" it refers to all of the cards you own and control, and all of the locations and cards that you and your teammate share (Fortresses + contents, LoB, and LoR).
You are off to a fine start here in the brawl-inducing sentiment department. Now all you need to do is close it out with some fighting words like...
And if you don't agree with me you can go soak your head.
I don't expect this change to occur in the next two days, but I think that maybe it could be a positive eventual step to making TEAMS a better category.
All that said, I am very much looking forward to participating in the tournament on Saturday. It should be great fun!
Ooooooooo. So close.
As a team, you two sure aren't communicating well. Maybe take a few moments to review your table talk code. ;)
-
As a team, you two sure aren't communicating well.
Unfortunately, the good Professor A and I can never form a team. The amount of nerdliness on one side of a battle might cause the table we were at to collapse into a black hole or something. We can't risk that.
-
Would "The Hobbit and the Physicist are going down this weekend" be fighting words???????
-
Everyone knows that both Hobbits and Fizzycists participate solely to experience the enjoyment of a game well played.
-
Would "The Hobbit and the Physicist are going down this weekend" be fighting words???????
Do they go by the names of Leonard and Sheldon? ;)
-
As a team, you two sure aren't communicating well.
Unfortunately, the good Professor A and I can never form a team. The amount of nerdliness on one side of a battle might cause the table we were at to collapse into a black hole or something. We can't risk that.
Agreed. Also, you're not worthy of being my teammate.*
Everyone knows that both Hobbits and Fizzycists participate solely to experience the enjoyment of a game well played.
Well, go ahead and enjoy losing all you want. Professors and Wild/Mild men play solely to experience the enjoyment of seeing the devastated looks on their opponents' faces after humiliating them.**
*Just trying to start a fight here. This comment does not reflect the actual feelings of anyone involved.
**Actually, this one is more or less an accurate representation of how I feel...MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
-
Everyone knows that both Hobbits and Fizzycists participate solely to experience the enjoyment of a game well played.
Well, go ahead and enjoy losing all you want. Professors and Wild/Mild men play solely to experience the enjoyment of seeing the devastated looks on their opponents' faces after humiliating them.
Aaaaah. The age old argument about how best to approach a Redemption tournament rages one. These positions are best summed up in a short conversation from a philosophic masterpiece of the modern cinema:
General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
General: Wrong. Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
At least we now know why Wild Bill thinks it's funny to make girls cry.
:P
-
When we used to play teams back in 1999 in CA, our rules were sooo much simpler. Then again, the entire game was so much simpler. :)
Carry on.
Oh, and Colin, I'm pretty sure you were joking about me knowing more that those guys about teams. You are, unfortunately, incorrect. I make it a point to know as little as possible about teams. I absolutely LOVE to play the category, but the rules make my head hurt. :)
-
If a card has an implied "your", such as "search deck for X" can I choose my teammate's deck to search for X? Or only if the card says "search your deck"?
Lightning is correct again that the special "your" rules of TEAMS only applies when it is written on the card. No implied "your"s :)
If I play Great Faith [Exchange this enhancement with another good enhancement in your draw pile (you may place in hand or in battle). Shuffle draw pile after exchange.] and choose my teammate's deck, can I put the card into battle, even though my teammate cannot play enhancements for me? And since it says "you may place in hand" does that "you" mean that my teammate places it in his hand, or do I? I would assume his, to be consistent with CoF.
According to the current overall game rules, players aren't allowed to put cards into opponent's decks, or to take cards from their deck unless to discard or set them aside. Therefore, the "your" rule would be limited by the game rule, and Great Faith would be limited to only manipulating a person's own deck.
why did the "your=you or teammate" rule come into being?
The idea was to allow further interaction between teammates and to distinguish the category from T1-mp. And despite people being worried that it would cause a lot of problems, there have been surprisingly few in the last 2.5 years. It could be that at some future point, the rule might need to be ammended like you suggest (to only apply to your cards + the team's shared cards), but so far it seems to be working nicely.
-
Man I am like perfect at dictating these rules! When am I gonna be an authority?! ::) ;)
-
Alright. I guess I still think it could be confusing, but I'll try my best to be a good sport and move on. Just one more question though: If a card says your hand, like the identifier on Heavy Taxes (X=# cards in your hand) can I choose which hand to count? So if I have four cards in my hand and my teammate has 8, can I choose his? And since it says "hand" I couldn't let X=12 (number in both our hands)?
Man I am like perfect at dictating these rules! When am I gonna be an authority?! ::) ;)
Maybe when you learn a little humility.
;)
-
I can't answer you next question I'm just so dumb... ;)
I think you could choose.
-
Since it's not an ability (assuming X is still not an ability), the card might only count cards in the hand of the person that played the enhancement. I'm not sure if you get a choice if the card is trying to define itself independantly of your preference.
But LN's been on a streak, so it might be safe to just side with him :)
-
If a card says your hand, like the identifier on Heavy Taxes (X=# cards in your hand) can I choose which hand to count? So if I have four cards in my hand and my teammate has 8, can I choose his? And since it says "hand" I couldn't let X=12 (number in both our hands)?
In a normal special ability "your" hand could be chosen to be either you or your teammate. As for in an identifier, that's new ground, which I don't think has been discussed before. I would lean toward having it work the same way for the sake of simplicity, but I'm not locked into that. And definitely you would have to choose one hand (not add the cards in both).
Man I am like perfect at dictating these rules! When am I gonna be an authority?! ::) ;)
I am impressed with your ability to accurately interpret the nuances of TEAM play. Keep up the good work! Of course Stamp MJB revoked my authority status, so I don't know how I could help you there. Maybe if you fought him for it :)
-
I am impressed with your ability to accurately interpret the nuances of TEAM play. Keep up the good work! Of course Stamp revoked my authority status, so I don't know how I could help you there. Maybe if you fought him for it :)
I was the one who revoked your authority status--and now everyone can see why. If you can't make the distinction between STAMP and myself, why should we trust you to make more vital distinctions about the intricacies of TEAMS play?
I learned from the Minnesota Viking fans that whenever the game is going against you, you should try and blame things on the ref. ;)
-
I learned from the Minnesota Viking fans that whenever the game is going against you, you should try and blame things on the ref. ;)
I know 12 reasons why you shouldn't. :laugh:
-
At least we now know why Wild Bill thinks it's funny to make girls cry.
The only thing funner is to train RLK's at Mini Camp, trade them all the good card for commons and then watch them almost beat SirNobody in the first round of a tournament.
Carry on.
It is going down on Saturday. 8)
-
I will be particpating in my first ever TEAMS tournament on Saturday, and I just wanted an idea of how some things work:
1. The rules say that teammates can discuss strategies openly.
a) Does that mean if a team member gets to look at an opponent's hand/cards in deck, etc. because of an SA, he can tell his teammate what's in it?
Yes, he must say it aloud so the whole table would know. The purpose of this so no one would cheat. If you are going to say something, then the whole table will hear it.
b) Can you pass your hand to your teammate so that he knows what you have without informing the opponents?
No, because this will take too long, and if you want to confirm then, just say it out loud so everyone can hear it.
c) If the answer to b) is no, are "signals" allowed between teammates (i.e. "Blue, 65; Silver, 10!" would mean "put down your Captain so I can attack next turn with the Jacob in my hand")
Yes, you can definitely do signals, what ever signal you do it need to be understandable to your teammate and yourself.
2. The words "your(s)", "opponent's"
a) If a card says "your hand/deck/territory/discard pile, could I choose which of us gets the effect? For example, if I activate Chariot of Fire, could I get my teammate's heroes out? Could I add them to my draw pile if I want?
No, because the card you play is belonging to you, so you must do the effect to yourself, and according to Byran Hake, only lost souls, fortress, sites, and dominants are share, so Chariot of Fire only works on yourself because is in your territory.
b) If a card says "your next turn" or something to that effect, is that my next turn, or my teammate's if he is next in line?
That would be your turn, because the "your turn" is about yourself. It doesn't say your team.
c) If a card says "do X to each opponent" do I do it to both of my opponents, or do I choose one to do X to?
Yes, because both of them are your opponent, but it said something like "your opponent's territory", then is the opponent who blocks you.
3. Character passing
a) Say my teammate and I have the same unique character in our territories. Can I put my copy of the character in a Fortress (such as Goshen/KotW) even though my teammate would then have two copies in "his" territory (as fortresses are shared)?
You cannot put a unique character into a fortress, like you say fortress is shared, so that would cost your teammate to discard his or her characters.
Any other question can always ask me, because my current specialty is on teams, so I have lot more experience in this and I have a lot of question for my playgroup leaders. Thank you.
That's all for now. I might think of more later.
Thanks. Michael Leung
-
Ah I forgot it was an identifier! My answer I believe is correct if it says special ability... although like Prof U said, I think for consistency "your" in the identifier should count the same way.
-
Two "discussions" came up in yesterday's team competition...
Question #1 (and I am hereby temporarily re-instating Prof Underwood's authority status to quote the following...):
According to the current overall game rules, players aren't allowed to put cards into opponent's decks, or to take cards from their deck unless to discard or set them aside. Therefore, the "your" rule would be limited by the game rule, and Great Faith would be limited to only manipulating a person's own deck.
If we assume for this single case that Prof Underwood is correct ( ;) ) does this ruling extend to Philistine Armor Bearer? In other words can Player #1 use Philistine Armor Bearer to search Player #2 deck or discard pile for a suitable EC?
Philistine Armor Bearer SA You may exchange this card with an evil Philistine in your deck or discard pile. Evil Enhancements remain in battle. Cannot be negated..
Question #2: There are two teams, Team A and Team B. Player #2 of Team B (B2) places Wall of Protections in play, which is shared with his partner, player B1. One of the members of Team A places Destructive Sin on one of player B1's heroes. Is Wall of protection negated?
Destructive Sin SA Place on a Hero. While this card remains, negate special abilities on that Hero and its owner's good Fortresses and Covenants.
-
I am hereby temporarily re-instating Prof Underwood's authority status
Thanks :)
can Player #1 use Philistine Armor Bearer to search Player #2 deck or discard pile for a suitable EC?
That's a good question. I still believe there is a game rule that prevents people from manipulating other people's draw piles in most ways. However, over the years there has been more and more encroachment in this area. (Following list probably not in order:)
Long ago, you couldn't do anything at all to anyone else's draw pile. Then came cards that discarded their top card, or looked at their draw pile and put it back. Then came cards that searched through their pile to pull out Lost Souls. Then came cards that discarded a couple top cards and then placed a previously discarded card on top. Then recently came cards that set aside up to 9 cards from the top of their draw pile, or that searched a deck to pull out an evil character. After all of this we now know that you can discard, search, pull out, and set aside cards from another draw pile. And you can put cards back into another draw pile, too (shuffling in, or putting a discarded card on top).
There are two things that all these have in common, regardless of manipulation. The first is that no one's cards except the owner of a draw pile are ever put into their draw pile. The second is that you only mess with other's draw piles when your card specifically tells you to. If we only look at the first commonality, then we might come to the conclusion that using your Armor Bearer to get a guy from your teammate's deck would be fine. But if we look at the second commonality, we see that AB isn't specifically telling us to do that. Justin's ruling in the other thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17608.msg277765#msg277765) was also only dealing with searching your own draw pile with a PAB being banded from an opponent, and then putting THEIR PAB back into THEIR draw pile. This would be reversing things to search their draw pile and put PAB back into yours.
So all that to say, that I don't think this would work. However, I'm not 100% convinced either.
Destructive Sin on one of player B1's heroes. Is Wall of protection negated?
Yes. Because forts are shared, a DS on either teammate's hero would negate their shared WoP. Upon review, I guess WoP would not be negated if it were actually a card belonging to the teammate because the hero's "owner" would NOT be the WoP's "owner". "Owner" doesn't have a different definition in TEAMS.
-
Destructive Sin on one of player B1's heroes. Is Wall of protection negated?
Yes. Because forts are shared, a DS on either teammate's hero would negate their shared WoP.
Since DS negates only the "owner's" good fortresses, you are saying is that TEAMS has a different definition of "owner"--in addition to different definitions of "you" and "yours"--than the other Redemption events. Can you quickly summarize what the definition of "owner" is for TEAMS?
-
you are saying is that TEAMS has a different definition of "owner"
Nope. TEAMS does NOT have a different definition of "owner". I apologize for the confusion. Previous post corrected.
-
I was thinking about this more Matt, and I think based on the wording of the card, I should have been right:
Destructive Sin
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Orange • Ability: None • Class: Territory • Special Ability: Place on a Hero. While this card remains, negate special abilities on that Hero and its owner's good Fortresses and Covenants. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ecclesiastes 9:18 • Availability: Thesaurus ex Preteritus booster packs ()
Note the bolded part. The word owner refers to the Hero, not the Fortress. The special ability would be equivalent to: "Negate special abilities on that Hero and the good Fortresses controlled by its owner." So since in our scenario, Nathan owned the Captain and controlled your Wall, it should have worked as I said. That was the argument I was trying to formulate in my head when I gave up trying in favor of time.
can Player #1 use Philistine Armor Bearer to search Player #2 deck or discard pile for a suitable EC?
That's a good question. I still believe there is a game rule that prevents people from manipulating other people's draw piles in most ways. However, over the years there has been more and more encroachment in this area. (Following list probably not in order:)
Long ago, you couldn't do anything at all to anyone else's draw pile. Then came cards that discarded their top card, or looked at their draw pile and put it back. Then came cards that searched through their pile to pull out Lost Souls. Then came cards that discarded a couple top cards and then placed a previously discarded card on top. Then recently came cards that set aside up to 9 cards from the top of their draw pile, or that searched a deck to pull out an evil character. After all of this we now know that you can discard, search, pull out, and set aside cards from another draw pile. And you can put cards back into another draw pile, too (shuffling in, or putting a discarded card on top).
There are two things that all these have in common, regardless of manipulation. The first is that no one's cards except the owner of a draw pile are ever put into their draw pile. The second is that you only mess with other's draw piles when your card specifically tells you to. If we only look at the first commonality, then we might come to the conclusion that using your Armor Bearer to get a guy from your teammate's deck would be fine. But if we look at the second commonality, we see that AB isn't specifically telling us to do that. Justin's ruling in the other thread (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/index.php?topic=17608.msg277765#msg277765) was also only dealing with searching your own draw pile with a PAB being banded from an opponent, and then putting THEIR PAB back into THEIR draw pile. This would be reversing things to search their draw pile and put PAB back into yours.
So all that to say, that I don't think this would work. However, I'm not 100% convinced either.
Also, the question that came up was not quite as Matt described. Bill wanted to use my PAB which was in our shared LoB (due to the Site Guard LS in Promised Land) to search his deck for Philistine Garrison. So this would be exactly the same situation as Justin responded to, except it would be my teammate instead of my opponent, which I would think would make it even more likely to work.
FWIW, neither of those two scenarios had a huge impact on the game, and it didn't appear that there were any hard feelings on either side (except maybe the thirst for, and eventual acquisition of, revenge by the losing team following the tournament). Overall TEAMS was a lot of fun, and the category helped me forget my dismal performance in the first two rounds of T1-2P, which took me out of contention for placing before I was able to win a few games. I look forward to playing TEAMS again.
-
The word owner refers to the Hero, not the Fortress.
Yes, it does refer to the owner of the Hero. And yes there is an implied "your" fortress. But we already talked about how the "your" rule only applies when stated on the card, and not when it is merely implied. I think that by a strict reading of the card, a teammate's WoP should still work.
Bill wanted to use my PAB which was in our shared LoB (due to the Site Guard LS in Promised Land) to search his deck for Philistine Garrison.
If he was using the PAB to search his own draw pile, then this is exactly like the ruling that Justin made previously. In that case, it probably should have been allowed.
-
I thought Fortresses were shared (read: contorlled by both people) regardless of the "your" rule. So even "holder's" Fortress or "his" Fortress could refer to yoru teammate's Fortress. Otherwise, how can I place/remove cards from my teammate's Storehouse/Goshen/KotW, etc. if I don't control it?
-
Destructive Sin
Type: Evil Enh. • Brigade: Orange • Ability: None • Class: Territory • Special Ability: Place on a Hero. While this card remains, negate special abilities on that Hero and its owner's good Fortresses and Covenants. • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ecclesiastes 9:18 • Availability: Thesaurus ex Preteritus booster packs ()
Note the bolded part. The word owner refers to the Hero, not the Fortress. The special ability would be equivalent to: "Negate special abilities on that Hero and the good Fortresses controlled by its owner."
This argument strikes me as much more palatable--in that one could say "owner's" is just identifying a player. If one did so, you get around the need to redefine owner for teams. That still seems to me to be a grammatical stretch, but not outside the realm of standard usage.
Also, the question that came up was not quite as Matt described. Bill wanted to use my PAB which was in our shared LoB (due to the Site Guard LS in Promised Land) to search his deck for Philistine Garrison. So this would be exactly the same situation as Justin responded to, except it would be my teammate instead of my opponent, which I would think would make it even more likely to work.
Sorry, I misremembered the precise scenario.
If he was using the PAB to search his own draw pile, then this is exactly like the ruling that Justin made previously. In that case, it probably should have been allowed.
I guess my issue is with the original PAB ruling, then, which did not strike me as particularly official when I looked it over prior to the tournament. Justin was the only "authority" who answered and his response was basically, "I have no problem with that" which didn;t strike me as a ringing endorsement of the idea. When PAB specifically states you can exchange it with another card in your deck or discard pile, I really don't see how that can mean I can take a card from one discard pile and place PAB in another discard pile. That discussion, however, must get moved back to the other thread.
FWIW, neither of those two scenarios had a huge impact on the game, and it didn't appear that there were any hard feelings on either side (except maybe the thirst for, and eventual acquisition of, revenge by the losing team following the tournament).
Agreed. I am asking not because of any deep-seated animosity but for two reasons 1) I want to know how to rule these scenarios in the future, and 2) I said I would. It's always nice to cross-check any controversial rulings after the tourney.
Overall TEAMS was a lot of fun, and the category helped me forget my dismal performance in the first two rounds of T1-2P, which took me out of contention for placing before I was able to win a few games. I look forward to playing TEAMS again.
I also agree that TEAMS is a lot of fun. It is pretty much the only event I have played this year. Hats off to Prof Underwood and M. Wolfe for this most amusing diversion.
-
Agreed. I am asking not because of any deep-seated animosity but for two reasons 1) I want to know how to rule these scenarios in the future, and 2) I said I would. It's always nice to cross-check any controversial rulings after the tourney.
I understand that, I just wanted to show my feelings regarding the tournament and how it went well despite the fact that I was clearly ruled against incorrectly...no need to get defensive.*
*;)
-
I thought Fortresses were shared (read: contorlled by both people) regardless of the "your" rule. So even "holder's" Fortress or "his" Fortress could refer to yoru teammate's Fortress. Otherwise, how can I place/remove cards from my teammate's Storehouse/Goshen/KotW, etc. if I don't control it?
My gut reaction on this is that they are shared, but that they are only controlled by both teammates due to a TEAMS game rule. Therefore, if a special ability refers to a "holder's" fortress, that it would still specifically target a fortress that the player actually "owned". Of course if a special ability refers to "your" fortress, then the "your" rule comes into play and would then refer to any fortresses that the team had in play.
-
The funnest of anything is to play a game of teams at Perkins after 10:00pm after eating Potato Pancakes off the 55 and older menu. ;D
-
I had one more question concerning "your" in TEAMS: If a card says "your" heroes, "your" Evil characters, or "your" anything else that is not shared among teammates, does the ability of the card automatically extend to all cards of both teammates, or does there have to be a choice of who "your" is referring to? For example, does my Magic Charms activated on my magician protect my teammate's magicians as well, or does it just protect the magicians of the player that we choose?
Type: Artifact • Brigade: None • Ability: None • Class: None • Special Ability: Protect your Magicians from capture and conversion. You may discard this card from your Magician during battle to capture up to two human Heroes. • Attributes: May be activated on your Magician • Identifiers: None • Verse: Ezekiel 13:20 • Availability: Thesaurus ex Preteritus booster packs ()
-
does my Magic Charms activated on my magician protect my teammate's magicians as well, or does it just protect the magicians of the player that we choose?
When Magic Charms is placed on a character, the person who places it chose which of the 2 teammates the "your" was referring to, and I think it would be the same "your" whose magicians would be protected.
-
Alright, so "your" is always a choice, and it is never the case that "your" can target cards of both me and my opponent, unless they are shared cards, like Fortresses? Am I understanding this correctly?
-
Alright, so "your" is always a choice, and it is never the case that "your" can target cards of both me and my teammate opponent, unless they are shared cards, like Fortresses? Am I understanding this correctly?
Why do I feel like I'm walking into some sort of trap :)
I hesitantly agree that your understanding (as corrected) is right.
-
Alright, so "your" is always a choice, and it is never the case that "your" can target cards of both me and my teammate opponent, unless they are shared cards, like Fortresses? Am I understanding this correctly?
Why do I feel like I'm walking into some sort of trap :)
I hesitantly agree that your understanding (as corrected) is right.
I would caveat the statement to say that 'your' is a choice "each time you have a choice". So if "your" is in the special ability of an enhancement, you get to make the choice once when the sa activates and the enhancement is used up. If the "your" was in the special ability of an artifact that is active again on your teammate's turn then you have the chance to make the choice again, this time selecting your teammate. If the "your" was in a special ability as part of an ongoing check or trigger, I believe the choice can be made each time "your" is evaluated (but of course, game rules wouldn't let you change a target once you had used "your" to make a choice). So things like Chariot of Fire work on both teammate's turns because it is still active and the "your" is re-evaluated again on your teammate's turn and this time you choose to have "your" mean your teammate.
Mike
-
So things like Chariot of Fire work on both teammate's turns because it is still active and the "your" is re-evaluated again on your teammate's turn and this time you choose to have "your" mean your teammate.
Since artifacts are not shared, I don't understand why CoF's SA would be re-evaluated at each team member's turn. Could you explain?
-
Take Gifts of the Magi, for example. You activate it on your turn and its special ability stays active till your next turn. On your turn, your opponent draws cards and GotM lets you draw cards. Then when its your opponent's turn, he draws cards again and GotM is re-evaluated, its condition is met and you get to draw cards again. How can this happen when it's your artifact but it's not your turn. The key is that the special ability is still active and it gets triggered again.
Now think of Chariot of Fire in Teams. It activates on your turn. It stays active through your opponent #1's turn, your teammate's turn, and opponent #2's turn. On your turn, the "Following your rescue attempt" is triggered and you choose "your" to mean you. On your teammate's turn, your artifact is still active and triggers because the "Following your rescue attempt" is evaluated again and since this is a "different" use, you get to pick "your" to mean your teammate this time.
Mike
-
Now think of Chariot of Fire in Teams. It activates on your turn. It stays active through your opponent #1's turn, your teammate's turn, and opponent #2's turn. On your turn, the "Following your rescue attempt" is triggered and you choose "your" to mean you. On your teammate's turn, your artifact is still active and triggers because the "Following your rescue attempt" is evaluated again and since this is a "different" use, you get to pick "your" to mean your teammate this time.
But I thought the idea was to do the "your" evaluation one time. Setting the trigger condition is done at activation isn't it? Why doesn't the "your" in "Following your rescue" trigger get evaluated when CoF is activated (by making the person activating CoF state which partner can trigger the artifact)?
It just seems strange to me that in this case "your" means--in a pragmatic sense--both you AND your partner.
-
But I thought the idea was to do the "your" evaluation one time...It just seems strange to me that in this case "your" means--in a pragmatic sense--both you AND your partner.
I agree with mjwolfe. Perhaps a similar example will help you. Imagine a regular T1-mp game when I have Unknown Nation up. My first opponent attacks me and triggers UN. At that point "my opponent" is the first opponent, but I choose not to use UN yet. Then my second opponent attacks me and triggers UN again. At that point "my opponent" is the second opponent.
There are some cards that are triggered at different points, and their targets can change. This is the same type of thing.
-
There are some cards that are triggered at different points, and their targets can change. This is the same type of thing.
I think you are missing my point. I am not concerned about targeting, here, as I understand I can choose which player (myself or my teammate) receives the benefit of CoF and I can change this each time the ability triggers. I am concerned about the triggering. Maybe I should phrase my confusion in the form of a question.
When I turn up CoF what precisely is the trigger condition?
Or--alternately--since the trigger is a "your" trigger, don't I have to choose either myself or my partner at the point of activation as the triggering agent?
-
OK mjb, I see what you're getting at. My understanding is that when a special ability targets a card or cards, the targeting phrase is essentially "replaced" by the actual cards targeted so that any future reference means the same exact card and therefore that targeting can never change (by game rule) for the duration of that phase. However, conditions like "Following your rescue attempt" are fully re-evaluated each time used. Chariot of Fire does not have a use limit, and can be used multiple times. So, on your turn, "Following your rescue attempt" is evaluated and you choose Player 1(yourself) after your rescue attempt. This doesn't become "Following Player 1's rescue attempt" permanently, only for that use (hence why you have to return only Player 1's heroes to Player 1's deck). And it doesn't become "Following Player 1's rescue attempt" at activation time, only when the trigger is satisfied after "your" rescue attempt. When it's your teammate's turn, the "Following your rescue attempt" triggers again and you get to select your as your teammate if you like (Player 3) since it is a different use, in a different phase from your first use. You then can return Player 3's heroes to Player 3's deck. So you are right that it's not your teammate's artifact, but YOU get to use Chariot of Fire on your turn and on your teammate's turn to achieve a similar effect (except that your teammate would still not be able to de-activate your Chariot on his turn).
Mike
-
Thanks for the explanation. Rereading the explanations above and thinking about how I would rule for Go Into Captivity helps me understand the results in a practical sense. I'm still not sure I grok why triggered abilities work this way in TEAMs, however.
Here's where I get confused.
Player 1 turns up CoF setting a trigger "following your rescue attempt." Immediately after activating CoF, which player is "your" pointing to? From the discussion above, it would seem to be both Player 1 and Player 3, correct?
-
Here's where I get confused.
Player 1 turns up CoF setting a trigger "following your rescue attempt." Immediately after activating CoF, which player is "your" pointing to? From the discussion above, it would seem to be both Player 1 and Player 3, correct?
Immediately after activating CoF, your is still unchosen and can be satisfied by either player 1 or player 3. It is being evaluated to see if any "Your" finishes a rescue attempt. If either player that can be a "your" finishes a rescue attempt, then the trigger fires. You don't see this in two-player or multi because there is only one player that can satisfy "you" or "your" to satisfy the trigger.
Mike
-
Thank you for your patience.