Also, if a creature in a team is no longer a creature because of a state-based action (i.e. Sarkhan), would it not be on the team anymore?

One more thing, then I promise I'm done. Say a Sagu Mauler is buddied to a Willbender and they are both face down. If I pay Willbender's unmorphing cost, would Sagu Mauler unmorph too? Same with flip cards, transform cards, and what not.

Why Skyshroud Forest over Yavimaya Coast?

I found a problem. "6) If a creature in a battlebuddy team becomes anything other than a creature, the battlebuddy team of that creature splits up into it's constituent creatures." and Rule 8 are addressing the same thing "8) If, for any reason, a creature in a battlebuddy team would become something other than a creature, then that card (and only that card) is separated from the battlebuddy team it was in." so this needs to be fixed. Other than that this format seems very fun to play. :)

To xEpf4x: For this format, I don't think there needs to be a commander aspect. I fell like, if there was, it would just get too crazy. But, if you think it's a good idea, you could always make a new format branching off this one where there is a commander aspect.

To 6tennis: Each team counts as 1 creature, so, to equip an equipment onto a creature, you would only have to pay the normal equip cost. If a creature joins a team with an equipment already on it, no cost is paid.I already addressed your 2nd question... twice. So I'll have to fix that.Regarding transformation, if a card becomes transformed, it is detached from the team it is in, transformed, then added back into that team all at instant speed.

To Magicrafter: Idunno man. I don't really care much about the deck. I'm working on a better one right now. This deck was just something to spread the format.

To MrCheeseOnToast: Yeah, I'll fix that. I guess I just didn't know which one to do, so I wrote them both down at separate times.

To 9redxiii: It's sick that you made a deck fallowing this format. I'll definitely check it out.

Here you go, I made one BattleBuddies

I see no reason for the format to be limited to modern, nor a reason for 60 life to be neccessary. Without in depth explanation, these rules seem random.

To be honest, the reason I made this limited to modern was because I am most familiar with modern, making it easier for me to find cards to ban.

The reason for 60 life is because basically everything is on steroids in this format (The creatures become way better cuz you can have three in one, making a 17/14 with trample and lifelink. The removal is better because one spell can remove one battlebuddy team, affectively removing 2-3 creatures for the price of one.) So it seems right to jack up the health also. In addition, having a lot of health makes for really fun, long games like in EDH.

Banding: The Format

Um.... You say Stolen Identity is banned, but you have 2 in your deck??

I feel like noncreatures with clone effects should all be banned and creatures with clone effects should be limited to one-ofs. For the Luutamo loophole, I would make it so the enchantment is stuck with the original creature it targets. If the creature is already buddied up, you would still have to choose one target. This also works for your opponent enchanting your creatures. For example, if you had Drakewing Krasis and Daring Thief buddied up, your opponent could target Drakewing Krasis with Pacifism to keep the group from blocking, but you could disband the group to have Daring Thief no longer affected by Pacifism.

You should turn this into a tournament.

@The_Dragonmaster: what do you mean by that?

make a tournament for this. Everyone submits decks then battles them on untap.in or something.

o that would be pretty sick, maybe soon

The rules on the docs is not shared publicly.

o yeah right. ill fix that.

I read through the rules and it seems interesting! A couple of things you may want to add - only able to split battlebuddies during your own main phase (didn't see it on there, might have been there though) and I think being able to fuse during second main would be okay. It would be powerful, but I think it would allow you to explore / utilize the game mechanic better.

Cool idea! I might try my hand at a list. Have you posted this in the forums yet? It's a good way to gain attention.

Very cool idea. I think you should add that all tap effects may be used when tapping a team. EG: 2Llanowar Elves team would produce 2 mana instead of just one. Any ways I'll probably edit a deck later, and test it out later.

Thanks for the input and the +1s, guys!

@Figag: Yeah I had the fusing only on the controllers main phase in the rules. (sorry that they're so poorly written and confusing. I'll start working on a better version soon.)Also, what do you mean by "the forums"? and how would I put this deck on them?

@fartzilla: That idea is very good. It's just one of those little things I overlooked. Thanks. And yeah, definitely make a deck, man. If we get enough publicity, we can start an online Battlebuddies tournament!

Just hit the Forums button on the top bar on Tappedout. It takes you to a list of the forums here on Tappedout. I think this is relevant to the 'General' forum, perhaps the 'Tappedout' forum, and possibly the 'social' forum. Just make a post saying 'hey guys check out this new format I made' and people should notice it. Probably one of my favorite tools on Tappedout.

I think indestructible would be overpowered in this format. Too easy to pump a team above most -x-x effects. Also effects that affect creature p/t should be calculated individually.
Knight Exemplar powers 3 1/1 knights to 3 2/2s that combine to a 6/6. If it's treated as a single creature it would be a 4/4 team. Nightmare would also be affected. Any ways check out my new deck: battle buddy format shades of death

@fartzilla. No indestructible isn't OP. Do you want to know what is? Mind Control.