Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Nats Game Loss

crazycarl91

crazycarl91

New Member
I want to start out by saying I had lots of fun at nats this year and it was run as well as a tournament with that many people participating. But I noticed that game losses were given out in an odd way . In my fourth round I was playing a t-tar deck and by turn 3 my opponent had used a Roseanne’s Research and a Bebes Search to get out a t-tar. Some time during the fourth turn my opponent notices they did not lay out their prizes. After one judge is undecided the second judge who I think was the head judge decided to give me a warning that I expected, but only gave my opponent a prize penalty. I was not mad or anything, but I thought that if you search your deck with out prizes it was a game loss hech it has happened to my a few times.
Also I found out that my friend in seniors got a game loss for not taking a prize and then using Claydoll next turn. I just don’t get the odd shift in game loss rulings.

Thanks,
Carl
 
The one thing about judging, is there are always going to be differences, but something like what you're saying honestly sounds like it should have been a game loss. By forgetting to lay prizes, and the fact that two search cards had already been used, this may or may not have placed your opponent at an advantage. The judge that was called over may have figured it didn't merit such an advantage and gave the penalty as such.
 
My friend used claydol under a psychic lock and got a game loss, then i found out my other friends opponent used claydol twice with only 1 out and he only got a warning, they seem very similar with extreme difference in penalty.

But you must remember, judges have varying oppinions and sometimes even make mistakes =/
 
thanks for the info that is what i thouth happend. i ended up getting the win at time. i just thought it was an odd situation.
 
well one reason for that is thet POP/PUI wants the games to be played out on the field, and not won by penalties. By giving the Prize loss to a damaged gamestate, it allows the game to continue.

Now if you did like 5-6 searches, then ya, the game is to broken to repair.

That being said, I liked the ruling on that allowing the game to finish.
 
it used to be an (almost) automatic game loss for searching without prizes. It was decided that particular policy was too harsh and had some potential for encouraging unwanted behaviour from competitors. The guideline advice now is for a PL(at events like nats) with the decision to escalate to a GL being made by the HJ. It is not an easy call in single game swiss.
 
It also depends on whether the claydol use, when it shouldnt have been, can be fixed. I know we rewound a few times where we knew the cards were still on the bottom of the deck and just backed it up. The sticky wicket occurs when a claydol is used improperly and then, before that fix occurs, another search occurs and the deck gets shuffled. Now we have a broken gamestate bc we do not know what the 1 or 2 cards placed under were.

PUI does prefer to settle the games at the table and not by GLs (unless that is necessary).

Keith
 
The Roseann's Research was not too big a problem since there are usually multiple copies of Basics and Basic Energy in a person's deck. The Bebe's for a T-Tar might have been more problematic if there were only one or two T-Tar.
But if there were 3 or 4 T-Tar, I can see the Prize Penalty since it's unlikely all copies of the card would have been prized.

See, it's that kind of calculation of relative advantage gained that can affect what the penalty is.
 
At Illinois states, I was handed a game loss on turn two when I realized I hadn't set out my prizes. I hadn't used any search cards, and the only Supporter I had used was Felicity's Drawing. I didn't think it warranted a game loss, and seemed to remember the head judge saying so at the beginning of the event, but I didn't appeal it. Later, some highly-ranked friends all agreed that I shouldn't have gotten the game loss. I ended up going 4-2, one place away from top cut. Sometimes it's good to appeal decisions you think may be wrong.:thumb:
 
At round 7 of Nats, my opponent had been attacking me with a Castform when I had Beach out. A judge came over and rewinded the game with Cosmic Power and Bebe's Search and rewinded Bebe's before Cosmic Power and we both got warnings. I didn't even get a prize card. Oh, well. I might have top cutted because of high resistance at 5-3, but oh, well.
 
Sometimes judges will go easy on your opponent if they see that theres no way you can lose to them just to make the game more fun for you and your opponent I've seen it happen to a kid before
 
I think that's pretty fair. it was only t3, but i'm pretty sure if there was any other thing done wrong he would have gotten a GL (maybe)
 
'pop. Respectfully disagree. But...

Issue is with the inconsistancy of the penalties within the respective divisions...



Vince
 
That is what you get when there aren't black and white rulings and all judges have are "recommended" penalties.
 
meganium45 said:
'pop. Respectfully disagree. But...

Issue is with the inconsistancy of the penalties within the respective divisions...



Vince
Click to expand...

I'll be happy to discuss it with you at Worlds.
We had a judge's meeting before Nats to discuss it. Hopefully it was applied evenly across the event.

One of POP's requests was to have games decided "on the table" as much as possible rather than via game loss penalties.

Sometimes a game loss is the right call for this, but I feel that a lot of judges jump to a game loss when a game is salvagable.
If a card that was searched for has 4 copies in the deck, how big an advantage was gained in the search? The liklihood that all four copies of the card would get stuck in the prizes is miniscule. About the same as the odds of drawing 4 of a Kind in 5 card draw with a 52 card deck.
 
'pop, or we can take it to the PUI boards / PTO side is always an easier place to talk.

I was just trying to keep the discussion from being side tracked as to "whether or not it should be a game loss" to the core discussion being brought up here which was...

Why were penalties being treated as a game loss in one instance and not in others in the same division?

I know PUI wants games decided on the table, and Game Losses are a last resort, but the issue the original poster was asking about concerned consistancy, and not applicability of the penalty.

Vince

I believe the answer is, in part, that for judges who were only giving a Caution or Warning for offenses, those did not need to be brought to the attention of the Head Judge, and so the Head Judge, who may or may not have issued a harsher (Prize Penalty or above) penalty on an alternate situation would have had no way of knowing of the more lenient penalty, unless they were called in on the case.

With 900+ people there, there was no way the HJ could police every penalty that was handed out throughout their division. No way. You trust your people to do their best, and so be it.

If the penalty seems too low folks, you can always ask to speak to a HJ! The HJ should be consistent with their ruling on penalties, but even in situations that seem very similar, there may be issues that are different enough to warrant different penalties that do not translate well into written explanation.

Vince
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top