PkmnManiac
New Member
how are you guys coming up w/these "Battle theories?"
2008/2009 Tournament Rules Revised
- Thread starter Big Daddy Snorlax
- Start date
Magic_Umbreon
Researching Tower Scientist, Retired
If you were playing some sort of deck where you didn't want to take sudden death but you were confident in leading prizes, just not so much closing a game. (Such as the deck I've been playing all year Redshift). If you won the first game, next game it would be better to concede midgame when you were at a point where you could take the lead early on a new game, but not win the current game. If you didn't concede and let the game wind down to a loss, you would not have enough time to take lead on the third game and lose. If you conceded too early after the first win, you would not have the opportunity to end the game leading and take the win due to time.
So in that situation under the new rules, the best thing to do would be to delay a concession to allow time to be called at your advantage. Would this be stalling, cheating or anything else or is it OK to do? Even if it IS, how would that be checked for? I'm really confused.
So in that situation under the new rules, the best thing to do would be to delay a concession to allow time to be called at your advantage. Would this be stalling, cheating or anything else or is it OK to do? Even if it IS, how would that be checked for? I'm really confused.
Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
No, I don't think this is true at all. Now GG could stall the second game even if it LOST the first game. And it will still be able to stall the 2nd if it wins the first game too.
Yes, there will be situations where GG was losing the 2nd game and could no longer stall out that game. But GG stalling out a game it was ahead in but would lose later is much much more common, and for these situations stalling would've increased under these rules. There seemed to be so many GG/Emp matches at nats that went a 40 minute game 1 ending in 6-5. The winner pretty much had won the match. Under these rules, GG wins all those matches regardless of how the first game ended.
As for where these battle theories come from...experience.
Props to PUI for trying to fix things. This system theoretically seems like it could be more legitimate, but looking at the way real decks played out this past year, there are real concerns to be had about this system.
Edit: PERHAPS this will be less of an issue with no Scramble decks, but it's hard to speculate about a new format. I see real problems if this was last format though.
I like the new time limits. With 40 minutes you can build a deck to win a complete pokemon game, the way it was designed to be played. Maybe this will mean everyone has to be a better deck builder revolving around the concept of the game rather than the tournement rules? Maybe you will have to build a deck that starts good, has a good mid game and end game! Instead of a I can go up 2 prize cards and stall because I am out of gas and almost out of pokemon.
Without this change, this coming season, there would have been many games won with only one or two prizes taken. Think about all those high HP pokemon and minimal ways to quickly charge them up.
I see a lot of discussion about how GG would stall and have an advantage but no one has mentioned that they would of only had one prize card to flip. Or, the fact that many GG decks were designed to go behind on prize cards to activate the scramble.
One suggestion for the tournment rules where it talks about time limits (18.5) it says construction or limited events but theres is no definition of these events in the rules. You may want to reference the reader to the tournment formats document for the definition of these two types of events.
Without this change, this coming season, there would have been many games won with only one or two prizes taken. Think about all those high HP pokemon and minimal ways to quickly charge them up.
I see a lot of discussion about how GG would stall and have an advantage but no one has mentioned that they would of only had one prize card to flip. Or, the fact that many GG decks were designed to go behind on prize cards to activate the scramble.
One suggestion for the tournment rules where it talks about time limits (18.5) it says construction or limited events but theres is no definition of these events in the rules. You may want to reference the reader to the tournment formats document for the definition of these two types of events.
Correction. The indiviual had to replace the cards AND received a game loss . It was interesting seeing photos of people at world with curved cards though...
Possibly a solution to the obvious problem of the 2/3: Make any game that is called on time have to be decided by at least 2 prizes.
For example, Player A wins game 1. Player B is winning game 2 with 5 prizes left and Player A has 6 prizes left. Player B finishes his turn, if he can't draw another prize, Player A wins because game 2 is considered incomplete because Player B does not lead by 2 or more prizes.
This might not be a great solution, but it would certainly help in the fact that an aggro deck CAN take 2 prizes in a 2/3 match and win the match.
For example, Player A wins game 1. Player B is winning game 2 with 5 prizes left and Player A has 6 prizes left. Player B finishes his turn, if he can't draw another prize, Player A wins because game 2 is considered incomplete because Player B does not lead by 2 or more prizes.
This might not be a great solution, but it would certainly help in the fact that an aggro deck CAN take 2 prizes in a 2/3 match and win the match.
MimeMimeMime
New Member
Looking at the 2008-2009 Modified Legal Reprint list, I don't understand why Claw Fossil and Root Fossil from pre Legends Awakened sets do not require a reference. It seems that the mechanics of these cards have changed significantly.
Fossil KO's now get prizes. That's in the rules. No need for a reference to the rules.
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
Well, those 2/3 rules really make my deck idea moot. I run Leafeon/Sceptile that's designed to lose 3 prizes in the first 6 turns if I'm playing against a competitive deck. However, it's also designed to always have two attackers in play with sufficient energy to attack, and its comeback ability astounds even me at times. I guess I'll just have to modify my style of play in the 2nd and 3rd games of a top cut then. Oh well...
ShadowCard
Active Member
The bending of the cards rule should start at a lower penalty but with a note that it should be escalated if the HJ believes unsporting conduct is a factor, like how it is done for a player who forgets to place prizes. It shouldn't be the reverse: a more severe recommended penalty with the knowledge that the HJ can reduce the penalty if it is believed unsporting conduct isn't a factor.
Where in the rules? I can't find it on the website.
There's a can of worms I'd rather not have :/ . They should require a reference.
Where in the rules? I can't find it on the website.
OP's online glossary said:
ninetales1234
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
I never thought about that. I am liking these new 2/3 match rules!
I completely agree with this.
DarthPika
New Member
Nick, I want you to really think about that for a second. All this does is allow the faster deck to win most of the time. Faster deck just has to play slow the first game and LOSE. Yes, the faster deck would WANT to lose (unless they get a chance to t2 them lol), but use a LOT of the time in doing so. Game 2 they simply take a few quick prizes, and right before it would usually start to lose steam time is called and it wins. For game 3 a speed deck vs a setup deck is a joke as any idiot could see who will draw the first prize unless the setup deck gets insanely lucky.
NoPoke
Active Member
Under the old rules the really slow setup deck could never make it to the 2/3 matchplay. Under the new rules the really slow setup deck has more chance of making it to the matchplay knockout and fails there instead. It didn't win before and it doesn't win now. At least now it gets to make the cut.
It has always been the case that to win a tournament a deck has to either be able to take a quick prize or deny the opponent the ability to do so.
FWIW I'm still "undecided" on the change.
It has always been the case that to win a tournament a deck has to either be able to take a quick prize or deny the opponent the ability to do so.
FWIW I'm still "undecided" on the change.
Rainbowgym
Active Member
Actually it's written on the (newer) cards.
As in answer on this
MimeMimeMime said:
I also think it's better the older versions require a reference.
To avoid confusion/discussions and because the newer ones have the text on it.
Before it was a game rule, introduced last year around June.
SLOW DECK
New Member
40 minutes ehh... it does seems more natural time for most games that I play in.
But would prefer the 30 plus one(or 3) more turn. To a player having a "known" end turn, it seems like a much more honest and honorable way of having a game. With all the new bench sniping decks out there, it seems like taking multiple prizes is always possible.
Having "TIME" called suddenly is like a sudden scratch (zzuzzuzz) accross a wonderful masterpiece album being played on a old record player.
The suddenness of time being called, with the judges whom all seem to have ESP abilities who believe the can detect and catch stalling, really just takes away from this great strategy game.
But would prefer the 30 plus one(or 3) more turn. To a player having a "known" end turn, it seems like a much more honest and honorable way of having a game. With all the new bench sniping decks out there, it seems like taking multiple prizes is always possible.
Having "TIME" called suddenly is like a sudden scratch (zzuzzuzz) accross a wonderful masterpiece album being played on a old record player.
The suddenness of time being called, with the judges whom all seem to have ESP abilities who believe the can detect and catch stalling, really just takes away from this great strategy game.
updated version (section 18.7.2.) is up: http://www.go-pokemon.com/op/tournaments/docs/2008-2009/Tournament_Rules.pdf
'mom
'mom