Cactus Game Design Message Boards

I would say all ECs would have to be Caananites, because fortresses are shared between teammates.

Sweet!! I thought this too, but just wanted to hear peoples opinions!

My opinion is that the fortress is active for both players, but there's only one of it. If a character of either player can trigger Herod's Temple's "your" then I would argue that the "your" on Tower of Thebez also applies to both players. And since there's only one instance of the fortress, I would say that the "your" simultaneously applies to both player's characters. Thus, it would require all ECs by both players to be Canaanites in order to meet the requirement since if one player meets it and the other doesn't it can't be both on and off and I think the on is more restrictive than the off.

Hopefully that makes sense, lol.

Pharaoh's Throne Room has a different kind of condition than Tower, though. Throne Room is simply looking for an Egyptian Pharaoh or king, if it finds one then the negate is active. Tower is kind of opposite of that, it's looking for all ECs to be Canaanites and if it finds one that's not the negate is not active.

I would also disagree with your assertion that abilities apply to each player individually. The fortress is shared but, again, there's only one of it. It has one ability, not 2 separate instances of its ability. A fortress can't be active for one player and not active for another because that would create confusion (Tower simultaneously negating and not negating Heroes). This isn't multi-player where there are multiple versions of a fortress in play (unless the opposing team also has one, lol), there is one Tower of Thebez and it's either active or inactive.

Regarding your "never works" comment, it's the fortress that's looking at each player, not the other way around. Both players control the fortress and their ECs in territory, therefore all ECs are "yours" for the purpose of the fortress since it sees both players as beings its controller so all their ECs that they in turn control and own would be "yours". This is also why my opinion is that all ECs on the team must be Canaanites for Tower to work because the fortress doesn't know how to distinguish a single character as belonging to a specific player on the team. It sees everything as one.

"Your" in relation to a card implies ownership and control of the specified card. You cannot use a Magic Charms activated on an opponent's magician if you band to it because you only control the magician, you don't own it. "You" or "your" not in relation to a card (such as on Fishing Boat), I believe, refers to the player using it (which is generally the player that controls it).

Regarding Chamber of Angels, I would actually rule that it tries to put the angel on both player's decks. Since cards can only be placed in their owner's deck the angel defaults to that deck.

Fishing Boat says "Each upkeep" which is shorthand for "each of your upkeep phases". The reason only the turn player can use it each upkeep is because they're the only one having an upkeep phase at that point, your teammate doesn't have an upkeep phase on your turn.

Regarding City of Refuge, I'm not really sure how it would work, though that isn't because of the current definition. The fortress is controlled by both teammates so if a High Priest is discarded City would try to dump the Heroes into "your" territory which is, technically, both players' territories. I don't know how that would end up resolving.

Actually, it is not different.  It isn't looking for one in play, it is looking for YOU to have one.  And if we go with your interpretation, then BOTH members of the team would need to have them to satisfy the condition, because it is the same as Tower:  If your territory meets X condition, do Y.  I agree with you that this interpretation does not make sense, which is why I would rule as I said for Tower.

You are correct in that, at the base, they are both conditional abilities. They are different insomuch as one looks for "a" target and the other looks for "all." You can meet "a" target anywhere in a territory (or both territories if my thoughts are true) but an "all" is exactly that, "all" the characters have to meet the criteria.

No.  This is certainly not true.  If it were, Teams would be VERY different, and I could protect from all EC of toughness 22 or less, since my teammate's Disciples would count for the 'your'.  'Your' ONLY counts cards YOU own and control.  You cannot have it both ways, and this actually supports my position, since 'your' has to be the definition we already have (which shows it is individually applied to each teammate) or it has to complete upend everything with 'your' in it (which will not happen).

It doesn't support your thinking because you took my thoughts completely out of context. We are discussing fortresses, the only (I think) shared card slot in Teams. Nothing else is shared so to say that "your" on a character suddenly applies to both teammates doesn't have any basis, and I certainly never said that it did. "Your" on Thaddeus only ever refers to its holder because characters cannot be controlled by more than one player at a time.

This is not true of fortresses in Teams, which are ruled to be shared, which is why my stance is that "your" on a fortress refers to both players simultaneously (because they both control it). Either that or "your" on a fortress only ever refers to the player that put it in play (because he's the only one that owns it). THAT would upend and make Teams very different, not what I'm saying. In fact, with the rules the way they are currently, these are the only 2 options that are legitimate. Either the control AND ownership portions of "your" apply to both teammates, or neither does. Any other ruling is inconsistent and doesn't fit with the current rules and definitions of things. And if both apply to both teammates, then "your" refers to both players at all times, it doesn't apply when convenient (Herod's Temple or Fishing Boat) and not when it's not convenient (Tower of Thebez).

It is not 'simultaneously negating and not negating' heroes, it just applies from the perspective of each player.  The more I look into this, the more convinced I am.  And I completely disagree with your assessment of Chamber of Angels, as it is another very clear example of something that works for each player individually.  There is no 'team deck'.

I moved this one down because it fits more after the point I made for the section above. Fortresses, while shared, still only exist as one card. There is no "perspective of each player" because the fortress is controlled by both and has no way of discerning one player from another. Even if you are correct and there are "perspectives" in card activation, how exactly would Tower not be 'simultaneously negating and not negating' if being applied from the perspective of each player? What exactly would you call that, then? I don't see how you can say a Fortress is shared but that it affects players individually. It's only one fortress, the teammates aren't treated as each having a copy of the fortress (because then you couldn't exchange characters through them, which is one of the reasons fortresses ARE shared), they both share the same copy.

Regarding Chamber of Angels, I never said there was a "Team deck" just that Chamber tries to place each individual card on both individual decks of the teammates simultaneously because they're both "your deck."



Whew, that novel took awhile to write.

Second, I didn't misinterpret or take anything out of context, you are trying to say that 'your' has a different meaning in this case and there is nothing to support that.  You cannot have it both ways, either 'your' in Teams means "yours or your teammate's" or it does not.

Actually that's NOT what I'm saying, lol.

I'm saying that "your <card>" always and forever has the exact same definition: a card that you (being the controller of the effect with the "your <card>" text) own and control. A fortress such as Tower that specifies "all your evil characters" is always and forever referring to "all the evil characters that the controller of this card owns and controls." I don't think we're in dispute about this, if I'm reading your posts correctly.

Now we can apply that to Teams. In Teams all players on a team (which currently is always 2, but you never know with the future) are treated as controlling any fortresses (and cards in Land of Bondage/Redemption, thank you for the clarification) that are on the table. If a fortress specifies "your <card>" it is referring to the controller of the fortress, as always, which in this case happens to be both players on that team. We know this is the case because either player can use Herod's Temple to instead the discard of their NT human. Now let's take this same line of thinking and apply it to Tower of Thebez. Tower specifies "all your evil characters" which, to reiterate, means "all the evil characters that the controller of this card owns and controls." Since this is Teams, and both players control Tower, "all the evil characters that the controller of this card owns and controls" refers to the evil characters of both players, since they both control Tower. As such, all evil characters of the team as a whole would need to be Canaanites, and at least one of them be in the fortress, for the negate to be active.

This interpretation flows naturally, to me at least, and doesn't make any illogical jumps that I can see. It also keeps the definition and usage of "your <card>" always and forever the same. Your point of view, on the other hand, is inserting a differentiation into "your <card>" of "your (this player's) <card>" versus "your (that player's) <card>" that I don't see anywhere in the definition of "your <card>." Perhaps you could specifically explain your interpretation?

Do either of happen to be computer people (know c++ or some other programming language) because I see you both think like a computer programmer. 

taking the card literally, if the card is really completely shared; both players on the team "own" the card and control the card. and if when one player on the team is taking there turn the other is also technically taking there turn, then the ability would mean that all ECs for that team must be Canaanite. However, if it is only one players turn at a time, then the the card is looked at relative to the player. And if only one player truly "owns" the card then it is read as relative to THAT player.

I believe this because if only one player is taking there turn then that is the only player truly "owning" the card at that time, and then the "your" would only apply to that player. Otherwise the "your" would apply to both players with complete control of the card ("own" the card and have control).

God Bless!

What does "your" mean then? tower says your and my understanding is that it means you have to "own" the card, only one player owns the card thus it would only apply to one player.

I might also be missing something you guys already covered.

God Bless!

However, we have perfect clarity on what 'your' means, and that it is not taking the dramatic change suggested in this thread.

I wish you would specifically tell me what "drastic change" I'm making when I'm literally just explaining exactly what "your" means, lol. It's hard to formulate further arguments when you aren't actually saying anything other than "that's not what 'your' means, you're changing things." What am I changing? What part of "your" (meaning owned and controlled by the card effect's controller, which in Teams is both players) am I getting wrong? Where does any official document/ruling/post say anything about a shared card magically being split between people?

Each player, individually, has this ability applied to them.  'Your' is referenced for each player just as it is normally, you have to own and control the EC for them to count, and if all of 'your' EC are Canaanites and Tower is occupied, it negates heroes.  That's all, it doesn't change 'your' at all, it just applies the effect to both players.

Where, anywhere in the rules or REG or in any official document, does it say anything about "applying" effects to "individual players"? I see nothing of that in the rulebook or in the rules for Teams. Your quote from Rob doesn't say that "your" is applied to individual players on a shared card, it just says that cards you play with "your" by default still apply to you rather than having the option to apply to your teammate. This extends, as I said, to shared cards in that the shared card references both players with "your." How specifically is this incorrect or inconsistent?

A shared Tower in Teams is still just ONE card with ONE ability that has ONE condition that is either met or is not met by the cards within its scope. Where specifically do you get the idea that there's any splitting or applying to individual players or that it has two separately evaluated conditions?

I'm really trying to understand your viewpoint but I just don't get what you think I'm changing, lol.

I mean no offense to either Redoubter or browarod with this post as I find them to both be knowledgeable players, but can we get an elder who plays TEAMs to chime in? We seem to be at an impasse here, and some outside clarification by someone who actually plays the category might help.

Thanks!
Me and Cookie Monster are doing teams for Minnesota state, and I am very interested to see what the final decision is!!