Intentionally Creating Prize Penalties

[ShadowCard]

I'm not saying that either player knows they will win or lose at the time a turn loss is given. I am not saying anyone is cheating. PL and MPL are not penalties for cheaters and neither should turn loss. Cheating has its own separate category and penalty.

Rewording: It is Player A's turn and he has one prize card remaining. A GPE from a previous turn is realized, resulting in Player B getting a turn loss penalty instead of a PL. Player B will lose his upcoming turn. Player A does not have a way to take the last prize. He has to try to get it through PONT or Dual Ball or some other card that does not guarantee getting the cards necessary to take the last prize. If he gets it, Player A takes the last prize and wins the game. The penalty is meaningless because Player B would not even have another turn.

Ness was talking about avoiding a meaningless penalty. A turn loss penalty is meaningless if the player getting it won't even have another turn to play. I'm not saying that makes the idea not as good though. That could open up the penalty to cheating.

 

[tutti]

Is a penalty really meaningless just for not changing the final outcome of a game, though? This penalty is supposed to be a step down from a turn loss, after all; it's meant to give the offending player a disadvantage, not completely prevent them from winning at all. Any penalty below game loss will end up meaningless if either player is so close to victory it has no "real effect", I don't see how it would be possible to make a penalty that gets around that, apart from modifying things outside of the game.

 

[P_A]

We could always try requiring the offender spend the rest of the match playing while standing on their heads. That otta learn 'em. lol.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

The prize penalty was never fine. It was always flawed. Its flaws are just more visible now because of the popularity of Durant. The multi prize penalty suffers from the same problems as the single prize penalty. Neither should exist.



It is hardly a concern of mine to allow a player with clearly obvious marked cards a fair chance to win the game.

It wasn't so much Durant that made it more noticeable. It was the coalition of Durant along with Twins, Shaymin EX, N, etc.

sorry, too long, didn't read full thread at first sitting. Looks like there are a few ideas how to handle this. I suppose some are easier to implement than others. (Not sure if it's a great idea for Miamisportsfan45 to think the same way I do - he may be offended! Ha ha.) However I also like your take on it as well.

Not at all. :lol: Good to know I'm not alone with the idea. It seems like a viable idea that would be more difficult for either player to capitalize on. Still allows you some leverage but doesn't allow them to break a rule so that they can use Twins or get extra damage from a knockout with Shaymin EX.

 

[tutti]

Well it's easy to come up with ideas.

Damage penalty: The opponent is allowed to place X damage counters on any pokémon in play any way he or she chooses.
Hand reveal penalty: The cheater has to play X turns (or the rest of the game) with his or her hand visible.
Knock out penalty: The opponent gets to choose X pokémon in play to knock out. If there are fewer pokémon than that in play, the opponent gets to knock out the cheater instead.
Energy loss penalty: After the game, replace X basic energy cards from the cheater's deck with other basic energy with less convenient colours. The cheater has to play with this deck for the rest of the tournament.
Lost Zone Energy penalty: The opponent chooses X energy cards attached to the cheater's pokémon and puts them in the Lost Zone.
Fetch penalty: The opponent chooses X of his or her own cards in any locations that are not in play and put them into his or her hand. The opponent gets to look at his or her prize cards to do so. If the deck is searched, shuffle it afterwards.
Simpson penalty: The cheater has to write "I will not cheat again" on a billboard X times. The head judge can choose a different phrase.
Supporter deprival penalty: The opponent can not play a supporter for X turns.

I'd hope at least one of these would be not horrible...

 

[Ken_the_Turtle]

Well it's easy to come up with ideas.

Damage penalty: The opponent is allowed to place X damage counters on any pokémon in play any way he or she chooses.
Hand reveal penalty: The cheater has to play X turns (or the rest of the game) with his or her hand visible.
Knock out penalty: The opponent gets to choose X pokémon in play to knock out. If there are fewer pokémon than that in play, the opponent gets to knock out the cheater instead.
Energy loss penalty: After the game, replace X basic energy cards from the cheater's deck with other basic energy with less convenient colours. The cheater has to play with this deck for the rest of the tournament.
Lost Zone Energy penalty: The opponent chooses X energy cards attached to the cheater's pokémon and puts them in the Lost Zone.
Fetch penalty: The opponent chooses X of his or her own cards in any locations that are not in play and put them into his or her hand. The opponent gets to look at his or her prize cards to do so. If the deck is searched, shuffle it afterwards.
Simpson penalty: The cheater has to write "I will not cheat again" on a billboard X times. The head judge can choose a different phrase.
Supporter deprival penalty: The opponent can not play a supporter for X turns.

I'd hope at least one of these would be not horrible...

These are presumptuous and as such pointless.
You keep saying 'the cheater', if you can prove they are cheating, they get a Disqualification from the tournament... NOT a prize penalty.

The suggestions here are to replace prize penalties (and thus be allocated when someone ACCIDENTALLY breaks game state)

 

[tutti]

Well apply those same ideas to the "person who accidentally broke the game state" rather than the "cheater" then...

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

Simple result would be "If an opponent is going to use a card following an action that broke the game state. Play that turn as if the game state hadn't been broken and no penalty issued."

If this were to be a rule in effect, those competitive enough to acknowledge the benefit of the gamestate being broken by an opponent could call over a judge and have them intervene throughout the turn.