Prize Penalty Issue

[Ness]

The problem I'm going to explain involves prize penalties not actually penalizing a player who has gained an unfair advantage. Though this problem has existed in the past, it is now more of a legitimate problem because there are more viable decks that aim to win without drawing six prizes (Durant).

Let's look at a practical example of this dilemma.

Player A announces an attack, believing he is knocking out the Defending Pokemon. He draws a prize card and mixes it into his hand. Player B informs Player A that the attack is not a knockout. Since Player B does not know which card Player A drew from the prizes, he most likely is going to receive a prize penalty and have a card from his hand placed back into his prizes. Sounds fair, right? Well...there are some complications that can arise. In the past, these kind of situations have occasionally been exploited (either intentionally or unintentionally), with the penalized player gaining a benefit from a card like Scramble Energy or Twins. Intentionally violating a rule to gain an edge from a prize penalty is against the rules itself and you can be further penalized for doing so, but that doesn't mean it can't cause problems if it happened unintentionally.

Now, let's look at how these kind of prize penalties now cause a dilemma against Durant/Lost World Gengar decks:

Since Durant (or the less popular Lost World/Gengar deck) are almost always trying to win without drawing six prizes, these prize penalties they are awarded for an opponent's mistake are useless (and in many situations counterproductive since it hurts their N/Twins). This gives players who make mistakes against the deck an unfair advantage. A player can draw extra cards, prize cards, etc. and basically receive no ramifications other than potential escalations of penalties in future rounds.

So what do we do? Well, I hate to unnecessarily complicate tournament rules, but additional rules are needed. A player who is awarded a prize penalty for some kind of disrupted game state needs to instead be awarded with multiple options. For example:

1. Draw a prize card.
2. Choose three random cards from the opponent's hand and add them to the Discard Pile/Lost World.
3. Choose three cards from the top of the opponent's deck and add them to the Discard Pile/Lost World.

For multiple prize penalties (which are always 3 prize penalties), allowing a proportional discard/lost zoning of nine cards could work.

I'm open to hearing alternative ideas to this dilemma. I originally thought discarding/lost zoning one card would be a suitable replacement to a prize penalty, but it seems proportionally insignificant compared to drawing a prize.

 

[Tash]

Extend the playclock so that player A isn't in such a rush to grab up his prizes.

 

[uuuufff]

I really like this idea, the concept of the player choosing the particular penalty is also sort of neat as well.

 

[Tagrineth]

At that point I think 90% of people would opt for the random discard. Would be a bit too much, I think.

 

[bullados]

Ness, the player can almost always choose to not take the penalty. The penalty still goes down and is reported to TPCi as a Prize Card Penalty.

As far as the relatively few levels of penalties in this game, I rather like it. Takes a lot of decision making out of the process, and lets Judges actually, y'know, focus on Judging the floor rather than assessing penalties to an individual.

 

[z-man]

I've never particularly liked the prize card penalty. It is the only penalty that directly changes the state of the game beyond attempting to correct the state of the game. Prize card penalties interact with cards like Scramble Energy and Twins which isn't good. They can change the flow of the game -- whereas a warning and a game loss don't change the flow of the game. Prize card penalties can put a complete advantage to either player. It is sad when people joke about intentionally giving prize card penalties just to be ahead in the game (due to twins and Scramble). Imagine a game where The Truth starts with 6 prizes and its opponent starts with 5. The clear advantage would go to The Truth.

There isn't much to fix it, though. As you said, some decks don't care about prizes, so a prize card penalty would be equivalent to a warning game-play wise. Giving a choice would over-complicate the ruling for the young-ins, but it would be nice. Three cards from hand OR three cards from deck? I'll take three cards from hand, more often than not. Prize card only is something that could actually go in the direction of either player. If possible, I'd want to replace this penalty with something that doesn't alter gamestate. IMO, altering gamestate beyond trying to fix it is only in rare situations where gamestate has been altered beyond repair, giving an advantage to someone, but the game is able to continue. That being said, I can't think of too many situations where this would happen.



But, yeah. Altering gamestate outside of correcting the gamestate is bad. Don't want as it gives an advantage to either player that wouldn't be given to that player by proper play.

 

[CMsvW]

Oh, I have no idea what provoked this thread >_>

No idea at all

 

[DJGigabyte]

Whenever you are offered a prize card penalty you don't have to take it. If you are playing against a deck which has a heavy Twins line, and you think going down a prize would put them at a serious advantage then don't draw it.

Different options could definitely be a very interesting option to try though.

 

[GodBlessAmerica]

You don't have to take the Prize penalty if you are offered. And if the opponent makes these huge mistakes multiple times over the course of an event, it may end up getting them DQ'd or make them receive a game loss.

I don't think the rules need to be changed regarding prize penalties, but maybe you could make the penalty into this:

You are allowed to take a prize
or
You are allowed to search your deck for 1 card and put it in your hand

Or you can choose to do neither

 

[Ness]

You guys are correct that drawing the prize card is optional. However, if you choose not to take the penalty because it is counterproductive, your opponent receives no ramification for disrupting the game and gaining an unfair advantage, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Let's look at an example of intentional exploitation and then unintentional exploitation.

Intentional
Player A is playing Durant and plays a Judge card. Player B shuffles his hand into his deck and draws four cards. He does not like the four cards he has drawn, so he draws two more, totaling six. If Player A notices this, a judge will be called, and what will most likely happen is the player will put two cards back at random and receive a meaningless prize penalty. Player B basically received a half mulligan on his bad hand, and gave himself a free opportunity to draw new cards.

Unintentional
Player A is playing Durant. Player B plays a Sage's Training card, and mistakenly shuffles three of the five cards back into the deck rather than discard them. The judge feels that this is not worth a game loss, but instead only a multi-prize penalty. Player B then discards three cards randomly from the deck, perhaps saving crucial cards that would have been discarded if the card were played correctly.

You see, even if done unintentionally, the absence of another penalty option puts players playing against Durant/Gengar at an unfair disadvantage.

You are allowed to take a prize
or
You are allowed to search your deck for 1 card and put it in your hand

Or you can choose to do neither

Not a bad idea, imo.

 

[Zarmakuizz]

You are allowed to take a prize
or
You are allowed to search your deck for 1 card and put it in your hand

Or you can choose to do neither

It is bad for the game state to search for any card instead of a prize penalty. The prize card is not known. Better draw one card instead.

 

[KazamBolt]

• Choose three random cards from the opponent's hand and add them to the Discard Pile/Lost World.
• Choose three cards from the top of the opponent's deck and add them to the Discard Pile/Lost World.

Oh god no. This would be the worst decision Pokemon has ever made.

Say, you Judged your opponent, and they then, on their next turn, did something to give you a Prize penalty. You, instead, choose to discard 3 cards from their hand, which includes a Professor Juniper and a Professor Oak's New Theory. They would only have 2 cards left in their hand, and quite possibly, lose the game right then and there.

A prize penalty has stayed in the game for as long as it has because it is fair. You can come back from a prize penalty, but often, losing a good portion of your hand would be devastating.

Even the Durant and Lost World decks can benefit from a prize penalty. What if they prized 2 Twins, or something else crucial. Yes, it doesn't help them win, but it's a free card none the less.

Maybe something else should be done with the prize penalty, but this is definitely not it.

 

[ninetales1234]

You guys are correct that drawing the prize card is optional. However, if you choose not to take the penalty because it is counterproductive, your opponent receives no ramification for disrupting the game and gaining an unfair advantage, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Let's look at an example of intentional exploitation and then unintentional exploitation.

Intentional
Player A is playing Durant and plays a Judge card. Player B shuffles his hand into his deck and draws four cards. He does not like the four cards he has drawn, so he draws two more, totaling six. If Player A notices this, a judge will be called, and what will most likely happen is the player will put two cards back at random and receive a meaningless prize penalty. Player B basically received a half mulligan on his bad hand, and gave himself a free opportunity to draw new cards.

Unintentional
Player A is playing Durant. Player B plays a Sage's Training card, and mistakenly shuffles three of the five cards back into the deck rather than discard them. The judge feels that this is not worth a game loss, but instead only a multi-prize penalty. Player B then discards three cards randomly from the deck, perhaps saving crucial cards that would have been discarded if the card were played correctly.

You see, even if done unintentionally, the absence of another penalty option puts players playing against Durant/Gengar at an unfair disadvantage.

I think this just goes to show how important deck choice goes into determining the outcome of a tournament.
Tournament rules go into determining the outcome of a tournament as well.

Think of all the times someone has used Clutch/Bite/Wrap/etc attacks to prevent the defending Pokemon from retreating in order to win the game on "time". Or people using Sweet Sleeping Face to "wall" their opponent's until the clock runs out. Often people play the game differently because of tournament rules such as time limits. This thread reminded me of that. Can we completely eliminate this stuff? Of course not, but we can try.:biggrin:

 

[Ness]

Say, you Judged your opponent, and they then, on their next turn, did something to give you a Prize penalty. You, instead, choose to discard 3 cards from their hand, which includes a Professor Juniper and a Professor Oak's New Theory. They would only have 2 cards left in their hand, and quite possibly, lose the game right then and there.

A prize penalty has stayed in the game for as long as it has because it is fair. You can come back from a prize penalty, but often, losing a good portion of your hand would be devastating.

Even the Durant and Lost World decks can benefit from a prize penalty. What if they prized 2 Twins, or something else crucial. Yes, it doesn't help them win, but it's a free card none the less.

Maybe something else should be done with the prize penalty, but this is definitely not it.

What you have to keep in mind are that prize penalties are given to a player who makes a mistake that had a legitimate impact on the game. (Extra cards being drawn/mixed up, etc.) Prize penalties are almost never given for simple occasional mistakes like prematurely seeing a card or placing the wrong amount of damage. I would much rather risk giving what seems to be a harsh penalty on a player that makes a game-impacting mistake than underpenalizing to the point that his mistake could strategically be worth doing. After all, that starts creating some incentives to actually break the rules.

It is bad for the game state to search for any card instead of a prize penalty. The prize card is not known. Better draw one card instead.

I agree with you because your idea is simpler. We do not want to issue a penalty that results in a player weighing a variety of strategic options. The fewer options, the better. However, we do need more than one as prize cards are no longer always a benefit when drawn in the Pokemon TCG.

 

[InnoceNt]

Just have the judge look at the offending player's list. If he runs twins, give out a multi-prize instead.

 

[ShadowCard]

Just to make sure we all know this, a MPL allows a player to take up to 3 prizes. If taking 3 means making that player vulnerable to Twins, they can take 2 instead.

Since Durant (or the less popular Lost World/Gengar deck) are almost always trying to win without drawing six prizes, these prize penalties they are awarded for an opponent's mistake are useless (and in many situations counterproductive since it hurts their N/Twins). This gives players who make mistakes against the deck an unfair advantage. A player can draw extra cards, prize cards, etc. and basically receive no ramifications other than potential escalations of penalties in future rounds.

1) A deck is made that has little intention of taking 6 prizes to win.

2) A penalty is given that allows the player of the above mentioned deck to take one of those prize cards.

3) A prize card which would very likely have remained on the table had that penalty not been applied is now effectively useful for that player.

Sounds like an advantage gained to me. The player now has access to a card Twins could not get. This would obviously hurt the player who relies on N to draw 6 cards. However, they now have access to a card that N would not otherwise have had. Even a Durant deck sometimes wants something in its prizes. Even a PL or MPL is usefull, to either be played or used in the playing of a card, like Junk Arm.

 

[Glumanda]

Intentional
Player A is playing Durant and plays a Judge card. Player B shuffles his hand into his deck and draws four cards. He does not like the four cards he has drawn, so he draws two more, totaling six. If Player A notices this, a judge will be called, and what will most likely happen is the player will put two cards back at random and receive a meaningless prize penalty. Player B basically received a half mulligan on his bad hand, and gave himself a free opportunity to draw new cards.

Oh, it is even worse than that. Per Penalty Guidelines, "Drawing extra cards" is in Game-Play-Error: Minor with a recommended starting penalty of Warning for Tier 2 events.

At my last judge seminar, we had a discussion regarding Drawing extra cards where we discussed exactly this kind of possible exploitation. The behavior you describe is exactly the reason, why you receive a Game Loss in both Magic and YGO, when you draw X+Y cards, when you are only allowed to draw X cards. Both of these games can do this, because they always play best-of-3 which directly leads to the reasoning why we have some in between penalty between Warning and Game Loss: In best-of-1, a Game Loss would be direcly a Match Loss.

So, as long as we are not introducing best-of-3 in Swiss play as the standard, we need some kind of in-between penalty. Principally, I think it is correct that the Prize Penalty is less of a penalty, when the opponent´s goal is not to draw all prize cards. This might not be optimal, but I think it is nearly impossible to find an in-between penalty which is completely unproblematic.

E.g. discarding 3 cards from the offending player´s deck might run you into the problem that you are discarding a Switch or Catcher or Rare Candy that player did not have in the discard pile before. And he has a Junk Arm in his hand... Suddenly what is supposed to be a penalty can be quite a big advantage.

That being said, maybe one should focus on constructing an in-between penalty which does not influence the game state...

 

[Ness]

E.g. discarding 3 cards from the offending player´s deck might run you into the problem that you are discarding a Switch or Catcher or Rare Candy that player did not have in the discard pile before. And he has a Junk Arm in his hand... Suddenly what is supposed to be a penalty can be quite a big advantage.

That being said, maybe one should focus on constructing an in-between penalty which does not influence the game state...

Excellent feedback. The thing you mentioned about a card going to the discard benefiting the offending player is the reason I used the Lost Zone over the discard. That would rarely benefit the player who errored. If you want to be even safer, you can give the player receiving the penalty the option of discarding/lost zoning. However, as I've already pointed out, I think we should aim for the simplest of solutions.

Just to make sure we all know this, a MPL allows a player to take up to 3 prizes. If taking 3 means making that player vulnerable to Twins, they can take 2 instead.

1) A deck is made that has little intention of taking 6 prizes to win.

2) A penalty is given that allows the player of the above mentioned deck to take one of those prize cards.

3) A prize card which would very likely have remained on the table had that penalty not been applied is now effectively useful for that player.

Sounds like an advantage gained to me. The player now has access to a card Twins could not get. This would obviously hurt the player who relies on N to draw 6 cards. However, they now have access to a card that N would not otherwise have had. Even a Durant deck sometimes wants something in its prizes. Even a PL or MPL is usefull, to either be played or used in the playing of a card, like Junk Arm.

If you are an avid PTCG player, you will understand that this is simply not the case. Not only do you lose your Twins ability, but every single N played over the course of the game is going to net you one less card. A Durant deck will rarely benefit from drawing a prize card as a penalty, and in the situations it does benefit, it will often be of little significance.

 

[Glumanda]

The thing you mentioned about a card going to the discard benefiting the offending player is the reason I used the Lost Zone over the discard. That would rarely benefit the player who errored. If you want to be even safer, you can give the player receiving the penalty the option of discarding/lost zoning.

Let´s play devil´s advocate: I am a Gengar/Lost World player and my opponent receives a Prize Loss. Of course, I would take the option of putting three cards from the deck into the Lost Zone.
Scenario 1: Twins, Twins, Junk Arm --> nearly no penalty at all
Scenario 2: Pokemon, Pokemon, Pokemon -->Uh, I just achieved 50% of my win condition (which would be equivalent to a triple prize loss, if I would want to draw all prizes).
While this example might be extreme, it hope it shows that this solution has the potential to become a "Penalty Roulette".

 

[Ness]

Glu, you make a good point, but the only way we are going to achieve a perfectly-balanced penalty is by making the penalties unnecessarily complicated. While a Gengar player adding cards to the Lost Zone is hit or miss, the important thing is that on average the opponent is receiving a worthwhile penalty. The most important aspect of this is that it removes any incentive to exploit the penalty guidelines.