Mulligan Charade - Who Shows First?

[prodigal_fanboy]

Wasn't this settled at Nationals?

IIRC, the kid that tried to play a false basic v. Diaz was penalized for it.

Why is this SUDDENLY* an issue? Someone seems to be very bawwww about Sableye SF.

*And by suddenly, I mean within the scope of the TCG's existence. I am aware that this thread started in January.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

JEREMY, I would not get that advantage, because I am a SHEEP. You say there is supposed to be an advantage, you must be a WOLF. The only way you get an this sligh advantage is if you wait until you opponent places the basic first.

Stating that mulligans were intended to have an advantage makes me a wolf?
Seriously?

I am not a wolf at all with pokemon. I believe that anybody who is incapable of playing pokemon for fun and starts treating it like a matter of life and death seriously needs professional help.

We've gone back to the big issue with your argument; instead of backing up what you say with logic, you simply try to ignore anything that you don't like (by calling somebody a wolf for stating a fact).

Since you refuse to respond to the question of why we should compromise sportsmanship for the sake of gamesmanship, I'm just starting to think that you don't have justification for it.

Since you refuse to explain what makes mulligans so unfair, I'm starting to think that you really don't have anything to back up your claims.

With all of that being said, I strongly doubt that you'll do anything more than shout a little bit louder.

 

[Ditto]

I think it's worth noting that this is a rules discussion, not a player discussion.

I'm not saying players shouldn't participate, but you have to look at it from a rules and game theory point of view, rather than a player's point of view. Just because something doesn't affect the player "very much" in your (general your, not calling anyone out) opinion, doesn't mean it's not a huge deal from a rules perspective. Remember, rules require perfection and absoluteness.

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

Rules require perfection and absoluteness.

Our legal system has limped along fine without either.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

Our legal system has limped along fine without either.

If somebody plays this game and their biggest complaint is that the rules are not 100% perfect. . . I guess that makes this a pretty darn good game. lol

Players have to be part of the process when any new rules are considered (you know, because they are the ones who have to use them).
If a rule is created to fix something that only a vocal minority see as a problem (and even then, a very very small problem with a very low chance of happening) and it makes things more complicated for new players and bugs the majority of existing players who did not see anything that honestly needed fixing, the company will get to hear players from the majority complaining about a rules change to appease a small group.

To be blunt, TPCI is probably going to consider whether or not they want to force a rules change to appease a small group of people (people who are always finding something to complain about anyways) and risk making the bulk of the playerbase upset.

Ditto, the hypocrisy of you stating that this is not a player's discussion honestly made me laugh. . . out loud.
This whole discussion has been a small, but vocal group of players screaming that the sky is falling because there is a tiny chance that something could happen that has a less than stellar chance of actually changing anything, even if it were to happen.

Maybe I would be more inclined to agree with you guys if the, "solution to the problem" wasn't a giant rules nightmare by itself.

 

[yoyofsho16]

In the end, it all comes down to the fact that someone might change their active based on how many Pokemon you have out.

Why don't you just draw slower or wait for your opponent to begin drawing so that you don't have to be ahead? If you started drawing the cards at the same time as your opponent, there would be no issue and you could simply wait 2 seconds for them to put out their active...

 

[Politoed666]

In the end, it all comes down to the fact that someone might change their active based on how many Pokemon you have out.

Why don't you just draw slower or wait for your opponent to begin drawing so that you don't have to be ahead? If you started drawing the cards at the same time as your opponent, there would be no issue and you could simply wait 2 seconds for them to put out their active...

The problem arises when both players are "wolves" and both utilize this strategy. You would end up with, as Rob and I discussed in the car the other day, a staring match. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

 

[Kayle]

In the end, it all comes down to the fact that someone might change their active based on how many Pokemon you have out.

This should never be a problem though.

The solution to this has already been presented and I see no issues with it.

1. If you draw your 7 cards and have no Pokemon in hand, you must immediately announce that you have a mulligan.
2. Your opponent then chooses their Active Pokemon.
3. Now you show your hand to your opponent to prove that you have a mulligan, and may proceed to draw seven new cards. Your opponent may draw a card if he chooses, and may manipulate his Benched Pokemon, but his Active Pokemon choice remains.

Alternatively, for the strange and silly "what if they only have one Pokemon issue?" - if you REALLY care,

1. You draw your seven cards and you do not have a mulligan. Your opponent draws theirs and does not call a mulligan.
2. You can wait for a bit to see if your opponent plays their basics first. If they do, you choose one Active Pokemon and play it face down. If I remember right, in the order of play, you must choose your Active Pokemon before you can choose any Benched Pokemon, and the steps are supposed to be done simultaneously by each player.
3. Once your opponent has chosen their Active Pokemon, you can play down any Benched Pokemon you had in mind. If they thought you only had the one, that's their fault.