I have multiple ids (Thingol1, Thingol2) that I've created on the site, exclusively to use for testing of new designs, so I've only had occasion to use the additional ids in private testing games.

The question I have is: would it be frowned upon to enter open team games or tourney team games using my multiple ids (ie - 3v3 team game, entering my 3 ids as one of the teams)?

I'm pretty sure this would be frowned upon.  One reason that quickly comes to mind is that you would enjoy the advantage of being able to "communicate" with yourself(s) in a fashion that would far exceed the capability of even the most communicative of partnerships. 

+1 on M57's comment.

A team game is supposed to actually have a team dynamic. Just one person shouldn't be allowed.

Going strictly by the rules, Tom can ban you for that, better keep it for private games only.

I think it'd be fun to have a team game where one player plays the entire side of his team.  IMO - if everyone is doing it, it should be fine.  Technically against the rules, and you could be banned by Tom though.

Ozyman wrote:

I think it'd be fun to have a team game where one player plays the entire side of his team.  IMO - if everyone is doing it, it should be fine.  Technically against the rules, and you could be banned by Tom though.

As a private game where nothing counts - and with all parties in agreement - no harm - no foul.

That's actually an idea, if it's possible to implement. Not play with multiple idents but with multiple colours. Like having a 2-man with four or six colours, two or three each. Would negate much of the first mover advantage on several boards, and the "team understanding" would be the same for both.

What do you say, designers, is this possible?

Only by doing what Thingol suggested. No implementation for that with one username.

Thanks for the answer, I thought that might be the case.

Litotes wrote:

That's actually an idea, if it's possible to implement. Not play with multiple idents but with multiple colours. Like having a 2-man with four or six colours, two or three each. Would negate much of the first mover advantage on several boards, and the "team understanding" would be the same for both.

What do you say, designers, is this possible?

Pretty sure it's not possible - otherwise I'm pretty sure I would have used it for some nefarious factory related purposes ;)

M57 wrote:

Litotes wrote:

That's actually an idea, if it's possible to implement. Not play with multiple idents but with multiple colours. Like having a 2-man with four or six colours, two or three each. Would negate much of the first mover advantage on several boards, and the "team understanding" would be the same for both.

What do you say, designers, is this possible?

Pretty sure it's not possible - otherwise I'm pretty sure I would have used it for some nefarious factory related purposes ;)

Yeah, if possible it would already be here. Logical.

Another thing I wondered about - have anyone designed a more fair starting order in team games? For two teams I've only come across A B A B A B etc or completely random. Is there any reason we don't see A B B A / B A A B? That way both teams go first half the time.

Litotes wrote:

Another thing I wondered about - have anyone designed a more fair starting order in team games? For two teams I've only come across A B A B A B etc or completely random. Is there any reason we don't see A B B A / B A A B? That way both teams go first half the time.

I doubt it, but it may be possible in that the Designer (with a capital letter means the interface) lets the designer "lock" seats.  I've never played with that feature but I can tell you that when you get into those areas of the Designer, the unexpected happens quite often, and you end up spending a bit of time tweaking related settings until things work, which is why I say it "may" be possible.

The best way I know of to equalize the start is to create a progressive first round bonus army allocation, and though I have to admit that I haven't given much thought to how it affects team games, I've pretty much assumed that what works for the standard game should work adequately for teams.  Not to toot my horn too loud, but I put a lot of thought into this aspect of my boards (for non-team games) and statistically speaking my maps tend to be more fair with respect to seat placement than most boards.

As you say M, the seats can be locked. I've implemented an ABBA turn order for team games using that. I don't think I'm the only designer to do so.

Thingol wrote:

As you say M, the seats can be locked. I've implemented an ABBA turn order for team games using that. I don't think I'm the only designer to do so.

So there ya go.. It is not only possible - It has already been implemented on existing boards.

Quick question: Can I assume every variety of team game would necessarily need a dedicated scenario??

2v2, 2v2v2, 2v2v2v2, 3v3, 3v3v3, etc..

That’s a good question. And I believe the answer is yes.

I think I've seen ABBA come up before also. I don't think ABBA BAAB would be possible though. Whatever the order is will stay put the whole game.

ABBA ABBA ABBA should be quite fair. Unless you don't like disco music.

Korrun wrote:

I think I've seen ABBA come up before also. I don't think ABBA BAAB would be possible though. Whatever the order is will stay put the whole game.

That's correct. It would have to stay ABBA each turn.

Nothing wrong with ABBA - us guys aren't supposed to admit to liking the group though, right?

Makes a certain amount of sense for a first round I suppose, but who wants to play in a game where teammates play consecutively for the entire game?

Not sure why playing consecutively is a bad thing if it's the same for both sides? Is there a mental block there?