Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Help With 2/3 In Top Cut

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GoldIn

New Member
Can someone explain how the 2/3 works in the top cut matches with 60 mins? Also, please include the pro's and con's of it!

Thanks
 
The first player who wins two games wins the match.

For the second and third game, the loser of the previous game chooses who goes first instead of flipping a coin (unless it's a sudden death).

If timeout happens:

a) during first game -> player with fewest prizes wins
b) during second game -> if one player took more than 50 % of his prizes (4 or more), the game counts and the player with fewest prizes is declared the winner of the second game, if it's 1-1 score then, a sudden death game (1 prize) is played
c) during third game -> player with fewest prizes wins


Pros:
- you don't instantly lose to donks or bad starts

Cons:
- third game, if necessary, often ends up in timeout, giving slower decks a disadvantage
 
ShadowGuard said:
The first player who wins two games wins the match.

For the second and third game, the loser of the previous game chooses who goes first instead of flipping a coin (unless it's a sudden death).

If timeout happens:

a) during first game -> player with fewest prizes wins
b) during second game -> if one player took more than 50 % of his prizes (4 or more), the game counts and the player with fewest prizes is declared the winner of the second game, if it's 1-1 score then, a sudden death game (1 prize) is played
c) during third game -> player with fewest prizes wins


Pros:
- you don't instantly lose to donks or bad starts

Cons:
- third game, if necessary, often ends up in timeout, giving slower decks a disadvantage
Click to expand...

Questions regarding time out during 2nd game:

1. What happens if both plays have 2 prizes remaining?

2. What happens if one player has 6prizes while the other has 5 prizes?

3. What happens if both players have 5\6 prizes?
 
The game continues until a player has less remaining Prizes or a win (or lose) situation is reached.

Except for game 2. See ShadowGuard's b).
 
Except Pokemon wasn't designed for a side deck. The differences in other mechanics make direct comparisons difficult, but we still need to try to compare and contrast Pokemon with a game like Magic: The Gathering. I've played a demo of Magic just enough to have a loose grasp of the basics.

Most (all?) cards in Magic: The Gathering have a "mana cost", and many (most?) of those cards have specific mana-type costs. While Creatures (the counterparts to Pokemon) don't have to meet Energy costs for attacks, they do "tap" mana in order to be summoned at all.

You don't have anywhere near the kind of draw/search power, either. In Pokemon, a skilled player needs to work everything needed into his or her deck. There is no need of a sideboard/side deck, so lacking a side deck isn't a disadvantage, it simply is how the game works.
 
GoldIn said:
Questions regarding time out during 2nd game:

1. What happens if both plays have 2 prizes remaining?
Next Prize Wins that game
2. What happens if one player has 6prizes while the other has 5 prizes?
If you're talking about taking 4 prizes vs. 5 prizes, then the player that's take 5 prizes wins game 2. If you're talking about remaining prizes, the second game doesn't count (unless it ends one of the "natural" ways after the 3 turns)
3. What happens if both players have 5\6 prizes?
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask here.
Click to expand...

Answers in bold above.
 
ShadowGuard said:
The first player who wins two games wins the match.

For the second and third game, the loser of the previous game chooses who goes first instead of flipping a coin (unless it's a sudden death).

If timeout happens:

a) during first game -> player with fewest prizes wins
b) during second game -> if one player took more than 50 % of his prizes (4 or more), the game counts and the player with fewest prizes is declared the winner of the second game, if it's 1-1 score then, a sudden death game (1 prize) is played
c) during third game -> player with fewest prizes wins


Pros:
- you don't instantly lose to donks or bad starts

Cons:
- third game, if necessary, often ends up in timeout, giving slower decks a disadvantage
Click to expand...
You get Turn + 3 before any of those kick in for each game, right?
 
Otaku said:
Except Pokemon wasn't designed for a side deck. The differences in other mechanics make direct comparisons difficult, but we still need to try to compare and contrast Pokemon with a game like Magic: The Gathering. I've played a demo of Magic just enough to have a loose grasp of the basics.

Most (all?) cards in Magic: The Gathering have a "mana cost", and many (most?) of those cards have specific mana-type costs. While Creatures (the counterparts to Pokemon) don't have to meet Energy costs for attacks, they do "tap" mana in order to be summoned at all.

You don't have anywhere near the kind of draw/search power, either. In Pokemon, a skilled player needs to work everything needed into his or her deck. There is no need of a sideboard/side deck, so lacking a side deck isn't a disadvantage, it simply is how the game works.
Click to expand...

This is an opinion.

Another big difference between Pokemon and Magic that you don't address is weakness. Magic doesn't have x2 (or whatever it is in the particular format) weakness. Pokemon is the ONLY TCG that you can pretty much have straight autolosses due to weakness. One could easily argue that because of this, a sideboard is needed more in Pokemon. There are "bad matchups" in Magic, but Magic has more of a "win-con" mentality. That means, if I meet my (rather, get to) my win condition, I win. That means, they build up to one point that defines the match. Pokemon has an initial set up, followed by a constant draw. In pokemon, you can run a Tier One deck that autolosses to a crap deck due to weakness. That will NEVER happen in Magic. If you run into that situation in Pokemon, your tournament can be ruined. If we did 2/3 in swiss with sideboards, that fear would never happen.

Then again, my above statement is just an opinion. Personally, I like the idea of just building a deck to cover weakness by way of techs. Not because side boards are or are not needed, just because I like the idea of having two different games. In Magic, you run about 23/60 cards as land (energy), thus the reason sideboards are a bit more relative: not because Magic is designed for sideboards.

Though, I agree, its not a disadvantage, just a uniqueness to the game.
 
chrataxe: Be careful not to paint all opinions in equal light. We are looking at data and drawing conclusions. It isn't like we are arguing over arbitrary preferences. Reading your full post, we actually aren't coming at things from completely different places... but I think you are giving too much credit to a weak counterargument.

Type-matching does not always result in automatic wins or losses, or even especially terrible games "in general". As for when it does?

1) Poor deck design.

2) Poor card/format design.

Now, how can I say that so authoritatively? Because I am considering the game and its history as a whole. If I do not, I get a skewed view; right now Weakness is often quite severe, but right now we have massive amounts of damage born from favorable damage-to-Energy ratios on top of forms of Energy acceleration for almost every Type!

In some formats Weakness was a minor annoyance, and in some it is absolutely crippling, but in the case of the latter it requires several (sometimes drastic) design decisions with the card pool. Instead of adding sideboards or side decks, I would much removing several of the conditions that are enabling Weakness to be so devastating... and even in the current format, it only causes this problem for certain decks; others are able to find "partners" to balance out Weakness.

Now, if current trends continue and we absolutely, positively cannot "fix" most of the factors I mentioned... then I'll reconsider sideboards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top