Author Topic: New TEAMS meta? (Read 51752 times)

Josh · « **on:** December 14, 2018, 01:37:50 PM »

So as I was sorting my PoC cards last night, a thought crossed my mind. I was looking at Chariot of Fire. My thought was, does this card break Teams?

Here's what I foresee Teams decks looking like once PoC is live:

Deck 1
SoG
NJ

Deck 2
AotL
TSC
Chariot of Fire
Some OT human prophets on offense

That's 5 potential Redeemed Souls w/ Doms alone. And guess what Samuel, King Saul, and King David all are...? Yep, good OT human prophets. So the fastest offense can easily incorporate Chariot of Fire into its race to 5 in Teams.

It's possible for a Team to win on their first turn now, before the other Team has done anything besides their Intro Prep Phases. (Maybe this was already possible with Eternal Inheritance/Christ's Triumph, or some other long-odds-scenario where you need the perfect starting hand). Now you want 2 Throne decks filled with cards that tutor their Doms (Golden Cherubim, Stone Pillar at Bethel, Birth Foretold, Search, Letter to the Hebrews, those RoJ cards that tutor NJ, etc).

I'm not sure raising the soul limit higher than 5 is the best solution, due to time restraints. Plus, the big draw of Teams is the strategy you implement with your non-Doms (shared LoB/Fortresses, inter-team banding, amount of offense/defense in each deck, etc).

Depending on how Chariot plays in Teams, I'd be looking to have Dom limits in Teams decks. Or make TSC's and Chariot's identifiers view both Teams' decks as "one deck".

Thoughts?

Master Q · « **Reply #1 on:** December 15, 2018, 01:03:13 PM »

Quote from: Josh on December 14, 2018, 01:37:50 PM

Thoughts?

Ban doms in teams.

Or don't play teams.

Isildur · « **Reply #2 on:** December 15, 2018, 03:12:19 PM »

Why not just outright bad doms?

Red Wing · « **Reply #3 on:** December 15, 2018, 04:52:39 PM »

Quote from: Master Q on December 15, 2018, 01:03:13 PM

Quote from: Josh on December 14, 2018, 01:37:50 PM

Thoughts?
don't play teams.

Yes.

Bobbert · « **Reply #4 on:** December 15, 2018, 05:12:23 PM »

Another option is to make the "may not be included in deck with" doms exclusive. If one player plays Second Coming their teammate can't play New Jerusalem, and vice versa. Same with SoG and Chariot. Never made much sense to me that you couldn't include them in the same deck but in a format where dominants are shared you could use both.

Josh · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2018, 08:56:37 AM »

Quote from: Bobbert on December 15, 2018, 05:12:23 PM

Another option is to make the "may not be included in deck with" doms exclusive. If one player plays Second Coming their teammate can't play New Jerusalem, and vice versa. Same with SoG and Chariot. Never made much sense to me that you couldn't include them in the same deck but in a format where dominants are shared you could use both.

This is the easiest solution that doesn't upset the apple cart.

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2019, 02:31:47 PM »

Since there has been no official ruling on this, because it’s in teams advice and not questions, I can ask this to be moved or just create a post in rulings. I would say a great rule is dom constraints go towards the team and not per deck. So Chariot could not be included if your teammate has SoG and same with NJ/TSC. Simplest and most logical explanation. I’ll check back on this and if it’s not moved I’ll re-ask the question in rulings unless you want to post it Josh. Thanks for bringing this up months ahead of nationals.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2019, 02:36:25 PM »

Quote from: Mr.Hiatus on June 27, 2019, 02:31:47 PM

Since there has been no official ruling on this, because it’s in teams advice and not questions, I can ask this to be moved or just create a post in rulings. I would say a great rule is dom constraints go towards the team and not per deck. So Chariot could not be included if your teammate has SoG and same with NJ/TSC. Simplest and most logical explanation. I’ll check back on this and if it’s not moved I’ll re-ask the question in rulings unless you want to post it Josh. Thanks for bringing this up months ahead of nationals.

This....AND I would also like to see the entire team being under one dominant cap.

The Guardian · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2019, 02:42:38 PM »

From Gabe's post here.

Quote

Dominants and Lost Souls are unique per TEAM. To help facilitate this TEAMS will only be allowed to check in 1 deck per player and will need to check them in simultaneously. This will impact the use of New Jerusalem & The Second Coming as well as Son of God and Chariot of Fire as only one deck will be able to contain one card from each pair.

Bobbert · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2019, 03:14:51 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on June 27, 2019, 02:36:25 PM

Quote from: Mr.Hiatus on June 27, 2019, 02:31:47 PM
Since there has been no official ruling on this, because it’s in teams advice and not questions, I can ask this to be moved or just create a post in rulings. I would say a great rule is dom constraints go towards the team and not per deck. So Chariot could not be included if your teammate has SoG and same with NJ/TSC. Simplest and most logical explanation. I’ll check back on this and if it’s not moved I’ll re-ask the question in rulings unless you want to post it Josh. Thanks for bringing this up months ahead of nationals.

This....AND I would also like to see the entire team being under one dominant cap.

Is this to say seven doms per team? I like the idea, but since dom cap is based on number of souls right now it would still be fourteen, to my understanding.

The Guardian · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2019, 03:16:45 PM »

I don't think 7 dom limit per team is necessary. I think it actually adds a lot to the strategy how teammates divide up the dominants.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2019, 03:42:27 PM »

You're basically saying you would rather have dominant selections be more strategic rather than making virtually every other facet of TEAMS more strategic. Dominants are inherently deter from strategy. I think I might play type 1 multi this year... anyone want to mask with me?

Josh · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2019, 04:02:27 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on June 27, 2019, 03:16:45 PM

I don't think 7 dom limit per team is necessary. I think it actually adds a lot to the strategy how teammates divide up the dominants.

That might be true... But I have to agree with TheHobbit here. Son of God, AotL, TSC, CM, and their ilk are honestly the most unstrategic cards in the game.

The Guardian · « **Reply #13 on:** June 27, 2019, 04:10:55 PM »

Quote from: Josh on June 27, 2019, 04:02:27 PM

Quote from: The Guardian on June 27, 2019, 03:16:45 PM
I don't think 7 dom limit per team is necessary. I think it actually adds a lot to the strategy how teammates divide up the dominants.

That might be true... But I have to agree with TheHobbit here. Son of God, AotL, TSC, CM, and their ilk are honestly the most unstrategic cards in the game.

Completely disagree--strategic use and timing of dominants has won countless games for me.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 27, 2019, 04:18:04 PM »

Quote from: The Guardian on June 27, 2019, 04:10:55 PM

Quote from: Josh on June 27, 2019, 04:02:27 PM
Quote from: The Guardian on June 27, 2019, 03:16:45 PM
I don't think 7 dom limit per team is necessary. I think it actually adds a lot to the strategy how teammates divide up the dominants.

That might be true... But I have to agree with TheHobbit here. Son of God, AotL, TSC, CM, and their ilk are honestly the most unstrategic cards in the game.

Completely disagree--strategic use and timing of dominants has won countless games for me.

I am not saying dominants never supplement strategy; I am positing that in the absence of all dominants, the game would be more strategic. In the context of TEAMS though dominants are very out of control. In my opinion TEAMS is not fun to play and has not been for a long time. Deck construction is very fun, but the actually game-play is equivalent to rule-less, type 1 multi. Picture that for a second hahaha

The Guardian · « **Reply #15 on:** June 27, 2019, 04:25:57 PM »

Quote

I am positing that in the absence of all dominants, the game would be more strategic.

Still disagree--the strategy would just be different. Are there some games where dominant play is fairly straightforward? Sure. But there's also many, many games where the strategy of using/saving dominants plays a crucial role in determining who wins (and surprise, it's not always the person who gets them/plays them first).

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #16 on:** June 28, 2019, 07:57:04 AM »

Then why have dominant cap in type 1 at all?

Mr.Hiatus · « **Reply #17 on:** June 28, 2019, 09:24:52 AM »

The strategy of when and what dominant to play is in itself a skill and can be used strategically but the overall consensus of dominants are a deterrent to strategy. I can’t disagree with them as SoG/TSC and Angel are all straightforward and 2-3 freebies, BUT using them in different scenarios, i.e, holding SoG to negate a remnant or holding angel to use it later on a specific EC is a strategic move with a non strategic card. I do think newer dominants are more strategic than previous ones. Grapes is great, Vain Vision, Chariot and Valley are all awesome. I do think however that maybe only Grapes will be used competitively by the masses in type 1 at nationals. Although there are strategic dominants and strategic times to use dominants, most dominants (the ones used by the majority) are inherently strategic-less at face value. I think both Justin and Josh’s POV’s are correct.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #18 on:** June 28, 2019, 09:49:38 AM »

Justin an Josh's point of views are mutually exclusive senator Hiatus

The Guardian · « **Reply #19 on:** June 28, 2019, 10:05:29 AM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on June 28, 2019, 07:57:04 AM

Then why have dominant cap in type 1 at all?

I said they are strategic, I didn't say they aren't powerful.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 28, 2019, 10:33:34 AM »

You are saying that the more dominants you have, the more strategy there is. But have now conceded that dominant cap is necessary because dominants are powerful. I am convinced now that you don't understand the relationship between power an strategy. Strategy is a function of power not the other way around.

The Guardian · « **Reply #21 on:** June 28, 2019, 10:44:10 AM »

Quote

You are saying that the more dominants you have, the more strategy there is.

I did not say that, and in fact I think the exact opposite. The dom cap creates the need for strategic decisions about which dominants to use. Most of the time that includes SoG/TSC/AotL, but as John's 2015 deck showed, not even those are a given.

Dominants are the most powerful cards in the game, thus their potential for giving a player an advantage if played optimally is the highest. Likewise, if they are played sub-optimally, it creates the potential for one's opponent to gain an advantage.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #22 on:** June 28, 2019, 10:52:13 AM »

Your argument is valid but it is not correct. I need some time to think.

The Guardian · « **Reply #23 on:** June 28, 2019, 10:55:04 AM »

Your opinion is noted, but it is disagreed with.

The Guardian · « **Reply #24 on:** June 28, 2019, 11:16:21 AM »

And again I'll reiterate, I absolutely acknowledge that there are situations when playing dominants does not require any strategic thinking.

For example...

You are two Lost Souls away from winning and you are holding SoG/TSC or SoG/NJ ... you play them and win.

You are one Lost Soul away from winning and you attack with 3 banded Heroes backed up with You Will Remain and holding AotL. Your opponent blocks with a lone EC ... you play AotL and win.

However, there are so many more situations where playing or not playing a dominant at a specific point in the game changes the course of the game. One of the most common things I see is people playing AotL on their first rescue attempt regardless of the EC that blocks. While there are times that is the right play, it is not always the optimal play.

CoW Falling Away added a very interesting strategic interaction with choose the blocker abilities -- do you save FA for a potential block or use it on offense to potentially win a LS and get rid of a strong Hero at the same time?

Knowing when to utilize Three Woes, and whether you are more likely to need it as good or evil in a given match-up is also very strategic. Against a Throne deck, it's probably better as evil in case you need to neutralize Throne. Against a deck with more defense, you might need it as good as a way to limit the opponent's blocking options.

I could give many more examples, but hopefully everyone understands my point. I can't help it if people disagree, but it's just annoying to listen to people say "dominants are so unstrategic" when in my personal experience that has just not been true.

News:

Author Topic: New TEAMS meta? (Read 51752 times)

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13