Does team play use unified spellbook building rules?

[Sailor Vulcan]

Does team play use unified spellbook building rules? For instance, on a double wizard team, can each wizard have 6 copies of dispel at maximum? or can they only have 6 total combined (possible ratios of dispels between each member of the team; 1:5, 2:4, 3:3)?

Also, if I'm on a Double Warlock team, can I make a demon summoned by my teammate my own bloodreaper instead of my teammate's (with my teammate's permission of course). The text on the warlock ability card is written in such a way that it explicitly allows it, but then I saw zuberi say on the forum that it was against the rules. I cannot find where it says that anywhere. Could someone please clarify this?

Thanks!

[Wildhorn]

The Bloodreaper ability says a friendly non-legendary demon. So it would be ok.

Each mage build their own spellbook. Teammates doesnt share limitations.

[Zuberi]

There are several concerns when it comes to team games that aren't covered as well as I would like currently. I have been told that they will be addressed in the future, however. For right now, these are the best answers I can give you for your questions.

1) Page 39 of the English Rulebook v3.0 states that all players on a team "are treated as a single player controlling multiple Mages." It then goes on to use the Unique trait as an example of what things this rule affects, stating that you can't have more than one copy of a Unique object in play as a Team, rather than just as an individual. There are several other things this ruling could affect, but unfortunately it is not described any place else in more detail and is thus subject to interpretation. Possible things it could affect include the Epic Trait and other rules regarding copies of spells included in your combined spellbooks.

Personally, since it is not clear and my group does not build books specifically for a set team, we do not apply this rule to spellbook construction at all. However, you are free to decide differently for your group. It is a rule that is very open to interpretation.

2) I asked a similar question several months ago regarding possibly stacking such abilities, which you can find >>>here.<<< The answer given indicates that mage abilities like Pet, Blood Reaper, and Holy Avenger can only be applied to creatures that you control as an individual, not simply to any friendly creature like it states in the rule book. This has yet to be added to an official document, but it is an official answer nonetheless.

[Zuberi]

I want to add that I think limiting the "Pet" type of abilities to creatures you control is the right choice. Even if they allowed you to use those abilities on your team mates creatures but didn't allow the same ability to be added more than once, there would be a stacking issue. Could you imagine a [mwcard=MW1C20]Highland Unicorn[/mwcard] made into both a Pet and a Holy Avenger? 17 Life, 3 Armor, and a potential attack of 9 Dice with Piercing +1 for a total cost of 17 mana from one mage and 4 mana from his team mate.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I want to add that I think limiting the "Pet" type of abilities to creatures you control is the right choice. Even if they allowed you to use those abilities on your team mates creatures but didn't allow the same ability to be added more than once, there would be a stacking issue. Could you imagine a [mwcard=MW1C20]Highland Unicorn[/mwcard] made into both a Pet and a Holy Avenger? 17 Life, 3 Armor, and a potential attack of 9 Dice with Piercing +1 for a total cost of 17 mana from one mage and 4 mana from his team mate.

Why can't they just make it so that the mage that summons it can pass on making it a pet, so then their teammate can make it a pet instead?

[baronzaltor]

I want to add that I think limiting the "Pet" type of abilities to creatures you control is the right choice. Even if they allowed you to use those abilities on your team mates creatures but didn't allow the same ability to be added more than once, there would be a stacking issue. Could you imagine a [mwcard=MW1C20]Highland Unicorn[/mwcard] made into both a Pet and a Holy Avenger? 17 Life, 3 Armor, and a potential attack of 9 Dice with Piercing +1 for a total cost of 17 mana from one mage and 4 mana from his team mate.

I disagree and think it SHOULD be allowed, for that very reason.

I like tandem abilities that encourage particular team ups. 

A Holy-Avenging-Pet-Unicorn is also the mage wars team version of putting all your eggs in one basket... now your two opponents only have to debuff or control one creature to oblivion instead of two separate threats.   Two mages should be able to handle one double-pet between their combined arsenal and collective actions.

In my opinion, team games and battle royale style games are not the place to be conservative with rules.. that is the arena where things should get bonkers... the amount of control, damage and tandem effects of two mages is the whole point of such a playstyle and is strong enough to handle the effects of combined abilities. 

Im all for:
-a friendly Druid's Raptor Vines getting Vet Tokens from my teammate being a Bloodwave Warlord.
-a friendly Anvil Throne Warlord to put a deflection Rune on my Forcemaster's Spiked Buckler or a mana discount rune on a friendly Warlock's Sectarus.   
-my teammates temples counting towards my temple of light max
-A Necro/Priest team being able to use their respective clerics on each others Altar of Skulls/Temple of Asyra
-a friendly Warlock's Darkfenne Bats benefiting from my Wounded Prey marker
- two allied warlords having each others solider benefit from each others battle orders
-two Warlords are on the same team, that my battle orders wouldn't affect my team mates soldiers.
-a teammate letting me sacrifice one of his creatures on Sacrifical Altar.
and so on..

So, when we do the occasional team play, I prefer to disregard this ruling and let the abilities/control overlap.  I think team play is just more fun with a "consensual control" concept instead and rather bland with a "friendy-but-not-controller" distinction.  I havnt really run into a situation where it needed to be barred off (though I havnt done tons of team games)

[Zuberi]

In my opinion, team games and battle royale style games are not the place to be conservative with rules.. that is the arena where things should get bonkers...

I do not entirely disagree with you. Multiplayer games are much harder to predict and thus more chaotic and "bonkers" with many more powerful combos than normally possible. That is inherent to the format. The reasons I support the decision I received regarding such abilities is:

1) It is simple. Easy to understand and communicate to others.
2) It seems to me like it would prevent more questions and concerns than we would otherwise have regarding the rules.
3) It prevents some of the powerful combos that are possible which may otherwise unbalance the game in favor of certain team combinations.

I think team play is just more fun with a "consensual control" concept instead and rather bland with a "friendy-but-not-controller" distinction.

I will agree that the more a team shares with one another the more fun they shall have, but I think that having a distinction between "friendly" and "controlled" is an important one for the health of the game. It can aid us in fine tuning the balance of multiplayer games, which as stated before is already inherently more skewed than normal with more powerful combos possible. I think that some spells and effects currently have the wrong wording, however, on whether they should affect friendly objects or just ones you control.

Why can't they just make it so that the mage that summons it can pass on making it a pet, so then their teammate can make it a pet instead?

They could do this. They haven't really done much in regards to this issue as of yet and could still take it in a number of directions. As far as I am aware, the response I linked to is the only official word on the topic and it technically only applies to the Beastmaster's Pet ability. I am inferring that it applies to similar abilities, but which abilities are "similar" enough for it to apply to is also open to debate.

If you find any other issues with multiplayer games, I encourage you to post them here for discussion, but most likely there will not be an official answer for you immediately available and you will have to house rule it until such exists. Multiplayer formats just have not received a lot of attention as of yet, but that should hopefully change.

[Schwenkgott]

As already mentioned in another post, we handle multiplayer games on octgn with the following rules:

1) Team initiative: Teammates are considered as one player. If the team has the initiative, they may move any creature in the team, it does not matter who is the owner of the creature.
(therefore it has proven very helpful to communicate with the teammate via skype etc.)

2) Shared Life: Both Mages share their life. Reason behind is that the game is not finished with a lucky round and the first dead mage. The team only loses together. The game lasts longer and therefor more exciting. That does _not_ mean, that the game lasts for 5 hours. All our games were finished in 2 hours max.

Shared life is based on the following values:
22.5 = Druid
24 = Forcemaster, Necromancer, Priestess, Wizard
25.5 = Johktari Beastmaster, Priest
27 = Beastmaster, Warlord
28.5 = Warlock
Add the two lifes together and round up.

3) Players of a Team may not cast 2 Quickcasts at a time without the other Team has the possibility to cast inbetween. Reason behind is to prevent chaincasting certain combinations, that are very frustrating.

4) No "offensive" use of Teleport on enemy Mages. Reason behind is that with the ability to teleport enemy mages, the best strategy to win quickly is always to separate the enemy team. Without the ability to teleport enemy mages, the game is more strategic and creature focused (and much more fun).

____

We never had problems with building spellbooks or using certain cards, that are legendary, epic or unique. In my opinion, a team should be considered as one mage, so the team cannot spawn several unique cards (wizard tower), but they should be able to use 2 epic cards in the team (one for each mage), because they are 2 mages, not one. And of course only 1 legendary creature on the board at the same time.

Concerning the combination of the mages skills like the holy avenger pet unicorn or the other combinations mentioned above: In my opinion, they should not be used in the game. Although the abilities of making a holy avenger or pet dont say anything about this, it does not feel right for me to create these super strong creatures. Thats not the way the mages should be played.