Mulligan Charade - Who Shows First?

[ryanvergel]

I have to agree with Lawman on this.

EDIT: It could influence you in an ADVERSE way if the oppo "declares" or shows a lone basic start and you decide to go for the donk. You place your active and/or bench, set prizes up and then the oppo goes..."Aha.,I really have a mully" and picks up that false active card. THAT is the dubious action I am talking about.

The fact is, through all of this argument, you have said that the purpose and intention of doing this is to give your opponent a false sense of the game state- that you have a basic pokemon. What you are doing is misleading with the potential to alter or affect the decisions and game play of your opponent, so it should not be permitted. It's not an honorable solution, it's a solution to benefit oneself at the cost of your opponent.

Your question as to whom should show first is still legitimate- I just disagree with the method of solution. I think something like:

It seems like a simple solution would be this....


Step 1. Draw 7 cards.

Step 2a. [DEL]Place basics down.[/DEL] Each player puts one card face down in the active position. If you have a basic pokemon in your starting hand, you must place a basic . If you have no basic pokemon, then you place a nonbasic or trainer or supporter or stadium.

Step 2b. Once each player has placed their card declare mulligan if you have no basics in [DEL]your [/DEL][DEL]hand[/DEL] the starting position or your hand. Show your opponent.

Step 3. Place 6 Prize Cards.
Step 4. NOW, the player (that already has his basic and prize card set down on the table) draws an extra card.

Make it mandatory to put a card in the active position whether its basic or not to eliminate any potential advantage.

would be smart because it gives the advantage across the board for anyone in that situation. it's just changing the situation slightly, and the timing, and that's all the importance.

but as it stands right now, if two people are having a staring contest, then penalties will have to be given.

who shows first? the person who doesn't want to accrue more penalties and values the possible loss of slight information over a prize or game loss aka every competitive player.

Lawman, it seams you shooting down a proposed solution to a serious problem, but not suggesting any other way to fix that problem. I feel like your suggesting that we just ignore the problem altogether, and pretend it isn't affecting the way every single game, which to me sounds ridiculous. I think dismissing it as not a big deal, when many players have stated that it effects every game's set up, is harmful to making the game better, which is everyone's goal here.

Disagree here. All lawman is doing is showing how the proposed solution by SLOW DECK is problematic on its own. Not providing a solution himself is beside the point. He isn't being dismissive. He is being critical of the proposed solution, which we should all be. He is being critical of arguments. I don't see any rudeness or dismissiveness here. Why bother putting in another problematic 'solution'? It's changing the problem, is all.

 

[Diaz]

Lawman, it seams you shooting down a proposed solution to a serious problem, but not suggesting any other way to fix that problem. I feel like your suggesting that we just ignore the problem altogether, and pretend it isn't affecting the way every single game, which to me sounds ridiculous. I think dismissing it as not a big deal, when many players have stated that it effects every game's set up, is harmful to making the game better, which is everyone's goal here.

Disagree here. All lawman is doing is showing how the proposed solution by SLOW DECK is problematic on its own. Not providing a solution himself is beside the point. He isn't being dismissive. He is being critical of the proposed solution, which we should all be. He is being critical of arguments. I don't see any rudeness or dismissiveness here. Why bother putting in another problematic 'solution'? It's changing the problem, is all.

By dismissing the idea, I mean that his point that there is no advantage to be gained by the sequence of events during set up is incorrect. I think the point of this thread needs to be about finding an adequate solution to this problem, not denying the existence of a problem.

 

[PokePop]

WotC used to have a complicated set of rules for set up based on who won the coin flip (or chose to go first based on the coin flip, since there was a choice involved back then).
They were fairly complicated to take into consideration the various possibilities.

So, if the current "freeform" situation is a major issue, there exists another method that could be implemented, if POP cared to do so.
The question should not be coming up with a solution. That solution exists.
The issue is convincing POP that there is a problem.

And to touch on the "false starter" solution proposed, I see that getting a penalty ranging up to Game Loss or even DQ. Not a viable solution at all.

 

[Gabriel]

Yamato did this at worlds and no one complained.

 

[PokePop]

Yamato did this at worlds and no one complained.

As the Master's head judge, I wish someone had brought it to a judge's or my attention.
He would have gotten a penalty!
Might have had to consult with the JP judges to see if his expectation of what was legal might be different based on their rules, but it would not have gotten a pass.

 

[Gabriel]

So then what is the correct way to deal with this? Just ask our opponents if they have a basic or not?

 

[PokePop]

The correct way is to resolve it the same way that you resolve who flips a coin and who calls it.
Just get it done.

That's not to say there is no argument for changing how it's done.
But right now, that's it.

 

[JokerBoi]

I am sorry but in my eyes playing a card face down as a basic when you don't actually have one is cheating. You are leading your opponent into thinking that you DO have a basic which is dubious in my opinion. To even go as far as to lay prizes is even worse. I had always thought it was against to lay ones prizes and then mulligan as it may or may not have an effect on the amount of basics in ones deck, correct? The easiest way to deal with this is to view your hand, wait for your opponent to play their basics, and then declare a mulligan before doing anything. Once an opponent has played a basic down they cannot choose to pick it back up, I believe that to be a rule as well. Furthermore if people do this what happens when both players bluff? Does one player actually go as far as to draw another card? Or Do they both mulligan.

I will admit that there may have been one or two times when I was a senior and I would have a basic in my hand but mulligan without revealing my cards or half revealing my cards due to the fact that I simply had a horrid start. So if lying about having basics in your hand is illegal when you have one why would it be okay when you don't?

 

[Lawman]

I am sorry but in my eyes playing a card face down as a basic when you don't actually have one is cheating. You are leading your opponent into thinking that you DO have a basic which is dubious in my opinion. To even go as far as to lay prizes is even worse. I had always thought it was against to lay ones prizes and then mulligan as it may or may not have an effect on the amount of basics in ones deck, correct? The easiest way to deal with this is to view your hand, wait for your opponent to play their basics, and then declare a mulligan before doing anything. Once an opponent has played a basic down they cannot choose to pick it back up, I believe that to be a rule as well. Furthermore if people do this what happens when both players bluff? Does one player actually go as far as to draw another card? Or Do they both mulligan.

I will admit that there may have been one or two times when I was a senior and I would have a basic in my hand but mulligan without revealing my cards or half revealing my cards due to the fact that I simply had a horrid start. So if lying about having basics in your hand is illegal when you have one why would it be okay when you don't?

Interesting that you admit to cheating! Hope the FL judges take notice of this. What a comment by a former FL State champion. :nonono: The rules clearly state you must show your entire hand for a mully and IF you dont show, that is a penalty.

Back to the OP. Who shows 1st. Well, considering you can place bench pokes before the start of the game, you are only required to place an active basis/fossil as a starter face down. For people thinking this is a major problem, then you probably argue about who gets to flip/roll and who gets to call "heads/tails". Really, are you here to stare and play mind games or to play Pokemon?? Seriously. You draw your 7 cards and you decide your best starter period. As the oppo, I can decide to place 1 basic down, set out prizes and wait for the flip. If I am concerned about a donk, I can add a bench before the game starts.

By trying to "force" your oppo to place 1st (which is REALLY the Q being asked by Rob, can he MAKE the other player place 1st), he is trying to play an angle. Sorry to call a spade a spade, but that is what it is. Simply place an active if you have one or place your cards in a pile, face down, while you wait to see if oppo places an active or not. If they dont place one, then it means a dbl mully. Show, shuffle and GO. When you do have a mully, you do not have to show your hand until the oppo places an active. That is in the rules too.

So, I hope that "answers" the Q and gives a solution too. Thx for the back up 'Pop on the ruling. Dubious = major penalty. Thx also to Ryan for recognizing my position.

Keith

 

[Dr. Mason]

It's a lie, plain and simple. Lying is wrong.

Good day.

 

[Box of Fail]

Interesting that you admit to cheating! Hope the FL judges take notice of this. What a comment by a former FL State champion. :nonono: The rules clearly state you must show your entire hand for a mully and IF you dont show, that is a penalty.

At the same time, I've had players declare 'mulligan' and shuffle in without thinking, then apologize when I asked to see their mully. Calling the judge on them for that and trying to get a penalty is just like trying to get your opponent to re-roll the die because it was below shoulder height, even when it rolled more than three times; I don't do it, and I consider it quite a dirty trick in Pokémon. I can't stand it when players try to squeeze penalties out of their opponents for slight procedural errors, or when they get technical ('I said Cosmic, not Cosmic Power'). Trying to get a re-roll on a good roll, saying 'Cosmic' with the intention of taking it back, and similar tricks I group with the kind of player I really don't enjoy playing against.

 

[Lawman]

At the same time, I've had players declare 'mulligan' and shuffle in without thinking, then apologize when I asked to see their mully. Calling the judge on them for that and trying to get a penalty is just like trying to get your opponent to re-roll the die because it was below shoulder height, even when it rolled more than three times; I don't do it, and I consider it quite a dirty trick in Pokémon. I can't stand it when players try to squeeze penalties out of their opponents for slight procedural errors, or when they get technical ('I said Cosmic, not Cosmic Power'). Trying to get a re-roll on a good roll, saying 'Cosmic' with the intention of taking it back, and similar tricks I group with the kind of player I really don't enjoy playing against.

This is not a minor issue though. You have the right to not only check to see if it is truly a mully, but you also get a glimpse at their deck contents. Could give you a huge edge in the match up. If you see Dark Palm Dusky, you keep bench size small.

You could also run into the player that "acts" like it was a mistake and they are really trying to cover up the lone 'karp start (or unown q). That is an out and out cheat and there should be NO place in this game for that. Players that dont alert a judge to these issues are letting (potential) cheats get away with more "tricks". Trust me, we have seen plenty of tricks. Without a compilation of errors that OP keeps up with, how do they find a "pattern" that may alert them to a cheat running around out there? Sure, no one WANTS to get their oppo in trouble with the judges, but when a rule is broken, it needs to be noted.

Keith

 

[JokerBoi]

Interesting that you admit to cheating! Hope the FL judges take notice of this. What a comment by a former FL State champion. :nonono: The rules clearly state you must show your entire hand for a mully and IF you dont show, that is a penalty.

If you noticed I said when I was a senior which was what? 5 years ago? So I guess you are trying to say since I've admitted to cheating once or twice when I first started playing the game I should be monitored by the FL Judges now 5 years later? Oh that will be just grand having a judge stand next to me every match at states to ensure that I play my basic pokemon in my hand. Allow me to also note that I won states in 2008 at the age of 17 in which I was a master, understood spirit of the game, and didn't need to cheat at all as if you were to read my report you would be able to see where I got terrible starts. A person tries to be honest and... I must say I felt attacked, I am not a hypocrite, and given the content of my post in it's entirety when compared to what you said about me as a player only brings the thought of ignorance to my mind.

 

[SLOW DECK]

BTW, I am a god fearing man, this is just a game, I would rather lose and scoop than cheat, slow play, or take an illegal angle. I will say this as clear as day. I don't think this is cheating, or against any rule. The dubious game action rule is a catch all rule that I might flip a table over if some judge out of the blue called this. If a judge came over during a match with me and said this was dubious game action and I have a game loss...... I would have probably explode. (Now that we are having this debate, I am obviously aware of the potential judging issues on this. But I would have FREAK.

BTW, Keith, If I do have a basic, I PLAY IT. I DON'T DELAY. In fact people have tried to MULLIGAN and SHOW ME CARDS before I have played mine, and I don't let them UNTIL HAVE PLAYED MY BASIC. Because I don't want to know what they are playing. So don't think that I am trying to Angle my opponnent to my advantage, we are trying to keep it fair.

What you guys consider dubious isn't dubious to MANY players, it is FAIR legal and follows the GOLDEN RULE. Do onto others as you would want done onto you. I would want my opponent to be able to show a false starter. I think it is fair.

Judges might want to consider if a top player from Japan does this, maybe the Japanese has already accepted this mechanic as proper. WHO STARTS FIRST.

 

[ryanvergel]

BTW, I am a god fearing man, this is just a game, I would rather lose and scoop than cheat, slow play, or take an illegal angle. I will say this as clear as day. I don't think this is cheating, or against any rule. The dubious game action rule is a catch all rule that I might flip a table over if some judge out of the blue called this. If a judge came over during a match with me and said this was dubious game action and I have a game loss...... I would have probably explode. (Now that we are having this debate, I am obviously aware of the potential judging issues on this. But I would have FREAK.

BTW, Keith, If I do have a basic, I PLAY IT. I DON'T DELAY. In fact people have tried to MULLIGAN and SHOW ME CARDS before I have played mine, and I don't let them UNTIL HAVE PLAYED MY BASIC. Because I don't want to know what they are playing. So don't think that I am trying to Angle my opponnent to my advantage, we are trying to keep it fair.

What you guys consider dubious isn't dubious to MANY players, it is FAIR legal and follows the GOLDEN RULE. Do onto others as you would want done onto you. I would want my opponent to be able to show a false starter. I think it is fair.

Judges might want to consider if a top player from Japan does this, maybe the Japanese has already accepted this mechanic as proper. WHO STARTS FIRST.

He might be like you and Ness and seek to influence their opponents decisions on how to start by falsely putting down a non-basic at the start of a game before declaring mulligan in order to disallow the opponent from gaining an insight into his deck that they should rightfully have.

It's dubious in my book. If you influence the opponent's decisions on false pretenses (putting down a card that is implied to be a basic- thus not revealing your state of having a mulligan) then what else can it be? That is what the game DEFINES as dubious gameplay. Maybe you don't think it's dubious, but this is definitionally dubious game action and should not be allowed.

This does not mean there isn't an inherent flaw in the game, but this solution is definitely a POOR ONE if it has to resort to such tactics.

Who is to say that the opponent isn't supposed to have that advantage in knowledge of your situation/deck? I think all of these arguments are using that as a foundational premise when they haven't shown why it should be one. That's just a plain assumption making the entire argument INVALID.

 

[NoPoke]

.....
Would it be legal to delay declaring my starting pokemon until my opponent declares his does have starting pokemon. What happen if my opponent knows the situation, and doesn't want to declare a mulligan until I declare if my basic pokemon. Who Shows First, who blinks first. The KISS rule would encourage a stalemate..

Yes of course you can wait, but there is still a time limit on how long players can take when deciding what to play as their starting pokemon.

This isn't a who blinks first situation because both players can make their choice and then show together.

If they both place a face down pokemon then all is good.
If one places a face down and the other shows a mulligan then that is good too.
If both show a mulligan then there has been no long drawn out wait.

Make your decision then ask them if they have made theirs.

 

[billbilski]

After soaking in this particular debate, I will concede that placing a false starter is technically wrong as the game calls for you to place a basic pokemon only - thus no other card can even be put as a starter. But as Rob notes, if I was penalized for this without a prior warning and official ruling, I would FREAK as well. This particular mechanic is almost universal among the midwest's best players... I might be one of the few players who is just too lazy to mess with it. Something this prevalent deserves an official ruling prior to any possible action.. THAT is just common sense.....

 

[NoPoke]

Too much Poker in the mid west????

With the prevalence of Sableye as a starter we could play snap too. There are just so many facets to this game.

 

[SLOW DECK]

I do appreciate everyone's comments and opinions here. The fact that there is disagreement on what is right, is the reason that I have pushed this topic. Of course I think I am right on the solution....., but in the same light, I do conceed to the group thoughts here. That fact that others do disagree does matter.

I can accept folks who say this procedure is dubious. Opinions do matter.

I like ryan's response most, because he disagrees with my solution, but RECOGNIZES that there is a FLAW in the fact that we don't decide on WHO DECLARES FIRST in the set up.

The most frustrating part of this is the denial of any problem part. I can live with the disagreement on the solution.

 

[ryanvergel]

I do appreciate everyone's comments and opinions here. The fact that there is disagreement on what is right, is the reason that I have pushed this topic. Of course I think I am right on the solution....., but in the same light, I do conceed to the group thoughts here. That fact that others do disagree does matter.

I can accept folks who say this procedure is dubious. Opinions do matter.

I like ryan's response most, because he disagrees with my solution, but RECOGNIZES that there is a FLAW in the fact that we don't decide on WHO DECLARES FIRST in the set up.

The most frustrating part of this is the denial of any problem part. I can live with the disagreement on the solution.

We also probably need more clarification on what a dubious game action is. Like you pointed out in the bluffing thread, this situation (the solution) also kind of comes down to interpreting that clause.

There is definitely a problem- there should be some direction or guidance, even if its arbitrary, as to whom should do the action first so that a situation where both players wanting to get the most advantage, legally, within the rules, are not put into a stalemate.

More rules, plz!