Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Prize Penalty Issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
Note, deleted my post, not going to get trapped into an answer here.

There theoretically could be circumstances in which I would consider a game loss to the player receiving the prize penalty if their actions proved to be gamesmanship.

I think any good judge would have to look at all of the circumstances surrounding the action on a play like this.

After all, you do get to see your hand before you set out your prizes.

Vince
 
meganium45 said:
Note, deleted my post, not going to get trapped into an answer here.

There theoretically could be circumstances in which I would consider a game loss to the player receiving the prize penalty if their actions proved to be gamesmanship.

I think any good judge would have to look at all of the circumstances surrounding the action on a play like this.

After all, you do get to see your hand before you set out your prizes.

Vince
Click to expand...

And somehow you think is less complicated and more sensible than simply letting a player Lost Zone a card from the top of his opponent's deck?

Regarding the comment I made about hosting more events, I meant of this new format. This issue has become more widespread because of the popularity of Durant.
Posted with Mobile style...
 
I read that as "This issue has become more widespread because of the popularity of [DEL]Scramble Energy[/DEL] [DEL]Twins[/DEL] Durant."

Not to sound like a broken record, but you're acting like this is new. Scramble Energy was bigger than Durant will ever be.
 
If there is a prize penalty for example if you are playing Durant and for some reason your opponent messes up you don't have to take a prize.
 
Ness said:
Thanks for clarifying that, Tina.
Click to expand...


I lol'd.


(Warning: I skimmed most of the thread)


Instead of Player B taking a prize, Player A adds a "Prize counter" (a die or something) next to their own prize cards. Next time they KO a Pokemon, they remove the prize counter instead of a prize card. This way, the number of actual prize cards remains the same, but Player A is still set back by one prize, just like the current system.
 
I think maybe if you get a Prize Penalty, a judge could stop you from playing any cards that get an advantage from having more remaining prize cards (Scramble, N, Twins ect.) for maybe 2 prize cards. If you were playing Durant/LostGar tough luck.
 
NoPoke said:
Penalties aren't supposed to be a reward to either player.

Though some aspect of reward (redress) is unavoidable it is the unintended reward aspect of a penalty that can drive some players to deliberately engineer a mistake to gain advantage from the anticipated penalty. Shifting the point at which a player wins avoids any risk that come-from-behind cards may be acitvated for the benefit of the player commiting the infraction.

I hope that players remember that taking the cards associated with prize penalties is optional. You are not forced to enable an opponents Twins.
Click to expand...

I only made it through the first 40 posts, but this caught my eye.

You could make it so that rather than giving the other player one of their prize cards (a reward) that you simply redefine a prize penalty to mean:

You must knock out an additional pokemon to win on prizes.

This could be listed on the match slip when the penalty is given, just like time extensions are. Though then you switch the meaningfulness of it to the other player. For instance, a durant deck doesn't care if they have to take 7 prize cards rather than 6, cause they're not actually planing on taking any.
 
Thing is that, Prize cards wouldn't be such a huge problem and could be used for penalty purposes if there weren't so many cards that rely on prize cards in the format. I don't think we've had this to this extent before. Such as N, Durant, Twins, Shaymin EX, etc.

Many more.

There should be alternatives though such as... A judge mediating the match after the first warning offense AND the option of reshuffling of the persons deck at fault and/or the prize penalty for this reason. Otherwise, instant disqualification after the 1st warning of the day. Seems a bit harsh and could result in far more... But it seems like the only legitimate way. If there were to be a scenario where this happens and one disagrees, they can take it up with the head judge.

Maybe even just hurting someones resistance heavily (like tardies) could do well, too.
 
Ditto said:
You must knock out an additional pokemon to win on prizes.
Click to expand...

megatron said:
Instead of Player B taking a prize, Player A adds a "Prize counter" (a die or something) next to their own prize cards. Next time they KO a Pokemon, they remove the prize counter instead of a prize card. This way, the number of actual prize cards remains the same, but Player A is still set back by one prize, just like the current system.
Click to expand...

With this suggestion, it actually ends up being the Durant player who ends up "above the rules." A Durant player isn't penalized from this prize marker - he or she isn't trying to win on prizes anyway.
 
Im getting confused, which scenerio are we using as the base of this discussion?

A- Durant Player has option to take a prize, making it difficult to play cards such as Twins, therefore the penalty actually helps the opponent.

B- Durant Player declines the prize penalty, resulting in no change to the game and no punishment for the penalty.

C- Opposing player takes a Prize. It is now far more difficult for a Durant Deck to win when the opponent has a headstart.

D- A player breaks the rules, and is now benefiting from their own punishment and can play cards such as Black Belt, Twins, etc.
 
djjoe227 said:
Im getting confused, which scenerio are we using as the base of this discussion?

A- Durant Player has option to take a prize, making it difficult to play cards such as Twins, therefore the penalty actually helps the opponent.

B- Durant Player declines the prize penalty, resulting in no change to the game and no punishment for the penalty.

C- Opposing player takes a Prize. It is now far more difficult for a Durant Deck to win when the opponent has a headstart.

D- A player breaks the rules, and is now benefiting from their own punishment and can play cards such as Black Belt, Twins, etc.
Click to expand...


The problem is that if that the player is offered a prize penalty but doesn't want to take it, there is nothing else they can offer. Suppose if I was a seedy player, (or a regular player, because i've never seen anyone cheat but I certainly have seen lots of prize penalties given for sloppy play or play mistakes) I could play sloppily knowing that if I were caught Durant wouldn't get ahead.

By the same logic, on the durant player's side, they know that the opponent wont be liable for their game mistakes however if they were to make a slight error for the opponent to take a prize, then they are much worse off.



I personally think that the penalty should be a turn. You should have to take an extra turn. When you're playing Magnezone, one prize isn't simply one prize - it can be a saving of up to 3 energy. You might take your five prizes using all of your 15 energy at 3 energy each because you got a prize penalty earlier on. Taking an extra turn would still force you to lost burn.

Playing ZPST? You're going to have to still use bolt strike. Reshiram? Still have to discard energy.

And, on the other hand, Durant and Lost world decks have an almost even advantage as other decks when given the opportunity to take an additional turn.
 
Taking a extra turn can ruin a game. Pokemon has very fragile rules from any other game that can issue a penalty. Please don't compare Pokemon to sports.

Taking a extra turn ruins the game state and taking prizes can ruin the game state as well. The goal is to not damage the game further. If anything, make the penalties 'neutral' and not game breaking. Ether give the opponent of the offending player the option to draw 1 card, attach an extra energy for the turn OR play an extra supporter. You know, something that does not change the game in most cases.
 
vaporeon said:
Ether give the opponent of the offending player the option to draw 1 card, attach an extra energy for the turn OR play an extra supporter. You know, something that does not change the game in most cases.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that all three of those can make or break many games. Maybe not just drawing one card, but definitely the others.

If only we could just go to best 2/3, then we could get rid of the prize penalty all together and just have it be a Game Loss.
 
they can be game changing but its not as extreme as taking a extra turn, game loss or taking a prize. It most cases, all players are playing some kind of energy acceleration, an extra supporter can be a little harsh if its followed up with like a N or Judge.
 
There is another criticism of the prize penalty concept that I haven't even touched on and that is its inconsistency. Depending on when in the game it occurs, a prize penalty can be the same thing as a game loss. How? Simply when a player has one prize left.

An interesting situation occurred in my Top 4 match at Worlds 2008 when playing Gino in Game 3. We each had one prize card left, and each received a warning to keep our pace of play up. After issuing the warning, the judge informed us that if we were again asked to keep up our pace of play, we would receive a prize penalty. At 1-1, a prize penalty decides the game. In Game 3, a game decides the match. Essentially, the prize penalty became a Match loss penalty.

In addition to the strategic issues I've mentioned above, the fact that a prize penalty can have such a profound and immediate effect on the game makes it seem kind of arbitrary - almost like it should be eliminated entirely, and we should simply have Cautions, Warnings and Game Losses.
 
Cautions warnings and gamelosses fix the issue. However it would make a lot of people upset to make an honest mistake and be punished very severely for it. In other games it works because of best 2 out of 3 rules. In pokemon its simply tough luck, hope you can bubble into top cut.
 
We used to have 40 minute rounds, why not go to best of three with 45 minutes. Not a lot, but you don't HAVE to get all three games in,it's just a nice option. If you only get one then it's just like it is now. Then we could get rid of prize penalties.
Posted with Mobile style...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top