Discussion: "Omatamix" New Standard vs. Old Standard in Teams

This thread is for discussing the impact that switching BG's kings and queens has on the game of 4PC Teams. Teams is a very different animal from FFA, and so the impact that this may have could be quite different.

Please share your thoughts on this topic! Give various positional advantages and disadvantages, or even share games that you've played that illustrate your points!

P.S. Please do not post comments that don't add to the discussion, which simply say "New is bad" or "New is good" without explaining why.

I'd say for newer players it's harder for them to tell the difference, but it messes up all teams theory otherwise

It definitely changes how the game is played. It was hard to get used to initially, but I'm starting to get the hang of it. The hardest thing is switching back and forth between the two.

I´ve played 960 teams and that is pointless. First, even with extensive home preparation this game is far too deep too complex to ever have a firm grasp on it, and the 960 shufflings often times go into awkward and/or too imbalanced positions. If that´s the alternative no thank you, I´ll stick to the standard any day. Playing always the same openings over and over is not a problem. The king-queen swappings though really work out. You get the positives of the standard setup but not the negatives of many 960 setups. The question which one of the 16 setups is "best" I don´t think we can possibly agree on that. At most we can agree that it enriches the game_ while keeping the basics pretty clean and simple_ for the adventurous players, and the players that don´t like to "rethink" the openings can stick to their favourite. Between old and new I didn´t like the queens confrontation of the old and the new fixes that, at some cost. I guess you can´t have it all.