2v2 game format

[Fieras 0]

I am running a 2v2 game variant tournament at kublacon later this month and I wanted to get peoples opinions on a few things.

Thus far, I know its the first team to 30 power.

 

I am including a few other rules, such as both team members need to run different house cards, and both players cannot run the same agenda.

 

Additionally, I though it would make sense to alternate players, so 2 people on the same team don't go in a row.

 

Does anyone have any input on this?  Can you attack either opponent?  Do you use titles?  If so, what would be the implications.  Is there any cool rule to allow you to defend an attack at your ally?

All input is welcome.  Thanks.

[Freerider2 0]

 Well there are no official rules for playing team games so it basically comes down to design your own format.

I'd think that the multiplayer title "supports" mechanics offer a good basis. Players would play individually and can declare challenges against either of their opponents. Then any challenge that is not defended against could be defended by the other team mate (similar to the supports mechanic). This way each player still plays their own deck but can help and support each other. In this type of set up I would also suggest arranging the seating so that allies are across from each other to balance the flow of play.

[Fieras 0]

Freerider said:

In this type of set up I would also suggest arranging the seating so that allies are across from each other to balance the flow of play.

Yeah, thats what I meant by "alternate players" but you said it so much more eloquently.

Freerider said:

I'd think that the multiplayer title "supports" mechanics offer a good basis. Players would play individually and can declare challenges against either of their opponents. Then any challenge that is not defended against could be defended by the other team mate (similar to the supports mechanic).

So no titles, but teammates support permanently?

[FATMOUSE 0]

 Core Set Rule Book:

“Two on Two” Variant
“Two on two” play is played with two teams of two players each, with partners sitting across from one another. The first team to score 30 power, in any combination, wins the game. In other words, if one player collects 28 power, and that player’s partner collects 2, that team wins the game. For the purpose of resolving card effects, the other player on your team is considered your partner, but not your opponent. Any card that refers to “you” only affects you, any card that affects “an opponent” or “all opponents” can only affect the players on the other team, and any card that affects “all players” affects you, your partner, and your opponents. You cannot, for any reason, initiate a challenge against your partner. Two on two play does not use the multiplayer title cards.

[mathlete 3]

FATMOUSE said:

 Core Set Rule Book:

“Two on Two” Variant
“Two on two” play is played with two teams of two players each, with partners sitting across from one another. The first team to score 30 power, in any combination, wins the game. In other words, if one player collects 28 power, and that player’s partner collects 2, that team wins the game. For the purpose of resolving card effects, the other player on your team is considered your partner, but not your opponent. Any card that refers to “you” only affects you, any card that affects “an opponent” or “all opponents” can only affect the players on the other team, and any card that affects “all players” affects you, your partner, and your opponents. You cannot, for any reason, initiate a challenge against your partner. Two on two play does not use the multiplayer title cards.

 

Fieras.....I've played a bunch of these type of tournies in the past.  They're a blast.  I'm looking forward to playing in your event at Kubla.  If you need any help with this event or setting up the rules, just contact me and I'll be glad to help.

mathlete2@yahoo.com

[Fieras 0]

Look forward to meeting you as well!

I don't have any questions yet, but around tourney time, I may ask for your expertise.

[Guest Not In Sample]

sounds like a great game , i'm tempted .
 

[Fieras 0]

We tried out 2v2 last night.  It is definitely a lot of fun. 

Targ Dragons and Greyjoy Ships/Saves took on Bara rush and Martell Brotherhood.  It was a close game, and I thought the Bara/Martell had us, but my ships eventually proved too much for them to handle.

I had 2 iron mines, 2 refurbished hulks, 1 foamdrinker, 2 scouting vessel, and 1 naval escort in play, and it just dominated the game in conjunction to having 4 influence and a maester wendamyr in play.

There are definitely some cards that thrive in this format.  Warship, for example, typically don't only target my own characters, so I can use scouting vessel and naval escort to help my teammate.  Also, blockade is really good, since it only lowers the gold on your opponents plot cards, not your teammates.

We decided to not allow talking prior to revealing plots to limit the metagaming a little, and I like that decision.

Either way, I think this will be pretty successful at kublacon.  It was a lot of fun.

[Skowza 9]

For those of you who have played 2v2 in the past, do you just take 2 existing decks and make sure your mate is aware of your plot choices and card combos, or do you actually build new decks designed to work together?  Some combos seem outrageous for 2v2 - double GJ Mill decks running alternate Blockades or FoW on turn 1 and 2 would mill their opponents pretty quickly.  A team playing Winter + Burn would also seem pretty effective - Targ player could use DragonPit, they could alternately run Winds of Winter and Threat from the North which would discard 3 STR characters even without burn effects...

[Fieras 0]

Skowza said:

Some combos seem outrageous for 2v2 - double GJ Mill decks running alternate Blockades or FoW on turn 1 and 2 would mill their opponents pretty quickly.  ...

This is why we errata'd it so you and your partner cant play the same house and/or agenda.  I am fairly certain that people could make some pretty amazing combos in 2v2.  I am curious if anyone will actually go that far for the tournament.

[Maester_LUke 0]

Fieras said:

Skowza said:

 

Some combos seem outrageous for 2v2 - double GJ Mill decks running alternate Blockades or FoW on turn 1 and 2 would mill their opponents pretty quickly.  ...

 

This is why we errata'd it so you and your partner cant play the same house and/or agenda.  I am fairly certain that people could make some pretty amazing combos in 2v2.  I am curious if anyone will actually go that far for the tournament.

I'm pretty sure that Casey & Mallesh both Greyjoy/Winter decks at GenCon's 2v2 last year... with some plot rotation, and multiple Frostfangs with both of them, it's pretty brutal.  I'd also consult with Ktom regarding the 2v2 than ran at one of the ChiCon's.  Winter Block was legal and we ended up with 6 Martell decks at the same table (2v2v2), with a sick amount of copying (Injurious Poison and Devious Machinations) for the wins.

[rwjohnson 0]

Hey John, 2v2 was pretty fun.  I thought we had you guys, but we should have started picking off your guys before you built up too much steam.  It was just too easy to get the unopposed stuff from the Targ player (I think his name was Steve?). 

Are you planning on letting people plan to play together before hand, or are you hooking people up together at the time of the event?  I think if one team manages to coordinate beforehand they could really dominate the game.  You said no table talk, speficically no planning plots.  But if a team hooks up beforehand they could plan out what they're going to play each turn.  Specifically a Bara player might hook up with a Stark or Martell Nobles deck, at which point they can plan to play 4 straight powers of blood between the two of them.  If you allow table talk, specifically of plots, you have somewhat of a bluffing aspect since I might say "I'm going to play Valar" and then someone plays Power of Blood, but then I play Forgotten plans instead.  Or something along those lines.  Just some thoughts. 

[Syd 0]

I think that table talk should be allowed. Of course the rule of not showing any cards stands, but the talk is one of the most fun parts of Multiplayer, and I see 2v2 as simply a multiplayer variant. The "bluffing" as you said, is great fun.

As far as random pairings...I do understand the fear of people building decks to complement each other, but isn't that kind of the point? If you throw together random people, they will be forced to pick decks right then and there, decks that may not work together well at all. Decks that might even hurt each other. I think you have to allow pairs to be picked, so that players can make a 2v2 deck, which is a different type of deck than Joust or Standard Melee.

[Saturnine 47]

 Whenever there's 4 people, my friends and I play a 2 vs 2 variant (with a couple of house rules). They way we do it is that each player picks a deck, and then we pair up randomly. It works for us because we're a casual group and it keeps things fresh, interesting and fair for us. Of course, sometimes two decks that don't really work together suddenly have to, but like I said, we're a casual group, so it's not that big a deal. If a friend and I suddenly played two coordinated Greyjoy decks, the other players would leave the game in a hurry

[Fieras 0]

Syd said:

I think that table talk should be allowed. Of course the rule of not showing any cards stands, but the talk is one of the most fun parts of Multiplayer, and I see 2v2 as simply a multiplayer variant. The "bluffing" as you said, is great fun.

As far as random pairings...I do understand the fear of people building decks to complement each other, but isn't that kind of the point? If you throw together random people, they will be forced to pick decks right then and there, decks that may not work together well at all. Decks that might even hurt each other. I think you have to allow pairs to be picked, so that players can make a 2v2 deck, which is a different type of deck than Joust or Standard Melee.

It is not going to be random pairings.  People can show up knowing exactly who they will be playing with.  Once again, the only restriction is they can't use the same house or agenda.  I expect people to find insanely powerful combinations from this.

As for the table talk.  I sometimes find it to be a negative play experience when that much table talk is involved.  It usually ends up being one person telling the other person exactly what to do.  This rule is up in the air.  We tried it out and it seemed to work.  If you guys would rather not play that way, then I am okay with changing it.

[Fieras 0]

The more we talk about this, the sadder I am that I will not be able to play in it.  Warhammer regionals is at the same time.

[Syd 0]

Fieras said:

The more we talk about this, the sadder I am that I will not be able to play in it.  Warhammer regionals is at the same time.

Hold on, then who is the TO? I thought you were running it.

[Fieras 0]

I am running it, but I probably can't play and run this while simultaneously running the warhammer regional.