Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Quote from: The Guardian on December 17, 2014, 04:35:27 PM

The Land of Bondage is considered to be in both territories.

This is still irrelevant, since Burial Shroud does not specify "Land of Bondage." It specifies that the holder may not be attacked.

Hey, I agree with you that the interpretation is wrong, but I'm just trying to explain (poorly I guess) what they are saying.

I'm not sure I follow...

The number of Lost Souls drawn wouldn't change. It would make Burial slightly more useful I guess since if each opponent only had 1 LS in LoB then Burial becomes an auto-block, but I'm not sure how the odds of LS drought increase.

If we want to split the Land of Bondage between teammates, I would guess that then each player would choose which opponent they attack. However we could implement an option for the non attacked teammate to be able to block for the attacked one. This would give more defensive options, while decreasing forced Lost Soul drought with Death of Unrighteousness and such. It would also keep Burial Shroud as a decent, but not overly powerful card.

Just to be clear, I'm more than happy to keep discussing this, I have been presenting the argument as the current ruling was derived and the explanation given for said ruling at Nats

Given the exact rules and rulings we have, this ruling does make sense and is consistent.  But that doesn't mean things with Teams are the best as they could be.

Precedent that was brought up at Nats included the way 'opponent' has been ruled and defining what an 'attack' is (which was discussed quite a bit among the group).  For example, if I attack with Ehud, both players on the other team are my 'opponent' and thus I can bring a character in from either of them.  I am essentially attacking them both when I enter battle until they decide who is blocking.  If I am attacking them both, then Burial Shroud means I cannot attack if I am restricted from attacking one.

That is what I mean by consistency.

Quote from: Redoubter on December 17, 2014, 05:47:20 PM

Given the exact rules and rulings we have, ...

Quote from: Redoubter on December 17, 2014, 06:01:02 PM

I am essentially attacking them both when I enter battle until they decide who is blocking.

From the Tournament Host Guide:

"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."

I do not see how this quote does not suggest that the current player attacks the opponent to their left.

That quote also does not account for several rulings that have been made since, including the Ehud ruling I mentioned.  Otherwise, I could only choose from the player to my left.  So the rulings here supersede that.

It's a shame, really. My students probably would have liked TEAMS, but I am not likely to host a category where the rules make no sense to me, since I would undoubtedly rule incorrectly.

Completely understand that sentiment, and we had much the same issue in our play area.  I'd like to see a 'Teams Rulebook' maintained, which I will put on my task list once this particular issue is resolved

I thought the rule was that technically one of your opponents always has to attack you. At that point you get to decide whether to slide the block to your partner or claim it as your own.  Is this correct? If so, I don't understand how that player would be able to do anything when you had BS active.

Shouldn't it be that you (the person with BS active) couldn't make a RA. Whichever one of your opponents is forced to attack you first would be unable to make a rescue or start a battle challenge. Your teammate could attack. The opponent forced to attack your teammate can start an attack and only your teammate can block.

I am no TEAMS expert, but my interpretation of the current rules would be the same as MJB. So:

I (Player A) activate Burial Shroud and cannot make a rescue.
Player B (my first opponent) attacks my teammate (Player C), who cannot "pass" the block to me because I cannot be attacked.
Player C rescues as normal.
Player D (my second opponent) cannot attack me because I cannot be attacked. There is no "passing," because the attack could never begin.
End first use of Burial Shroud.

This was from an old thread regarding this topic. I think this is a valid interpretation though some have said there are still issues that would need to be ironed out. Just wanted to add it to the discussion.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on May 16, 2010, 01:39:32 AM

I thought the rule was that technically one of your opponents always has to attack you. At that point you get to decide whether to slide the block to your partner or claim it as your own.  Is this correct? If so, I don't understand how that player would be able to do anything when you had BS active.

Shouldn't it be that you (the person with BS active) couldn't make a RA. Whichever one of your opponents is forced to attack you first would be unable to make a rescue or start a battle challenge. Your teammate could attack. The opponent forced to attack your teammate can start an attack and only your teammate can block.

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on May 16, 2010, 10:40:38 AM

I am no TEAMS expert, but my interpretation of the current rules would be the same as MJB. So:

I (Player A) activate Burial Shroud and cannot make a rescue.
Player B (my first opponent) attacks my teammate (Player C), who cannot "pass" the block to me because I cannot be attacked.
Player C rescues as normal.
Player D (my second opponent) cannot attack me because I cannot be attacked. There is no "passing," because the attack could never begin.
End first use of Burial Shroud.

This was from an old thread regarding this topic. I think this is a valid interpretation though some have said there are still issues that would need to be ironed out. Just wanted to add it to the discussion.

According to what was apparently ruled at Nationals regarding BS--this is not a valid interpretation--the opponent forced to attack my TEAMmate cannot do so--and I thought they could. Moreover, according to the Ehud ruling, my opponent is not ever technically attacking me, and then I get to make a decision. My opponent is attacking both me and my TEAMmate simultaneously (and apparently who gets to actually block is left up to quantum mechanics or somesuch). This makes the entire line of argument wrong.

You seem to be missing the point that I have to teach the game to a large group of young players. This isn't just about making a correct ruling at one point in a tournament. This is about teaching the category correctly as they are first learning it.

And if you teach them an incorrect ruling, so what? At the absolute worst one or more of your students goes to Nationals and looks like a dunderhead. There are those of us who do that in basically every tournament or whenever they weigh in on online discussion (q.v., my posts above). The only difference is that I have only myself to blame, while your young players will absolutely know that you are the cause of their problems. 

Basically, I think you are fine as long as when you do get the rules wrong it doesn't detract from the joy of playing the game

I was operating under the incorrect assumption that Ehud could only choose a blocker from the player to the left because I was told at Nationals that abilities such as "Look at opponent's hand" could only be used against the opponent to my left. (It was a player that told me such, not a judge so I guess I should have asked...)

It was probably me.  So little time, so many bad rulings to propagate.

Quote from: The Guardian on December 18, 2014, 01:40:24 AM

I was operating under the incorrect assumption that Ehud could only choose a blocker from the player to the left because I was told at Nationals that abilities such as "Look at opponent's hand" could only be used against the opponent to my left. (It was a player that told me such, not a judge so I guess I should have asked...)

The problem is that I think a lot of this got hashed out AT Nats this year, and that it was worked out that both players are 'opponent' when the rescue is stated.

Just out of curiosity, do you know *why* this decision was made (as opposed to keeping the previous "the player on my left is my opponent prior to a EC being placed in battle")?