Single game tie rule needs to be revisited

[ShadowCard]

If you run out of cards to start you turn, you lose. Doesn't matter how many Pokémon are in play, doesn't matter what the prize count is.
If your opponent takes all of their prize cards, you lose. Doesn't matter how many cards are in your deck or how many Pokémon are in play.
If you run out of Pokémon in play, you lose. Doesn't matter what the prize count is or how many cards are in your deck.

All 3 win conditions are "first to _______ and avoid the other two win conditions from happening." Therefore, all 3 of them are equal.

This is incorrect. You even said it yourself. Here, I'll put it in different colors: If you run out of cards to start you turn,...

This win condition has a further condition on it. The other two are instant and end the game no matter where in the game you are. This one only applies at the start of your turn. Therefore, it is not equal to the other two, which happen instantly.

A player takes all prizes = game over
A player runs out of pokemon in play = game over
A player has 0 cards in his deck + it is the start of that player's turn = game over.

Also, the win condition for prizes and pokemon can interact with each other. Cards in deck never interacts with the other two as a tiebreaking win condition because it can only happen at the start of the turn. You never get to it when one of the other two is achieved. It is never checked at the same time as the other two.

 

[signofzeta]

This is incorrect. You even said it yourself. Here, I'll put it in different colors: If you run out of cards to start you turn,...

This win condition has a further condition on it. The other two are instant and end the game no matter where in the game you are. This one only applies at the start of your turn. Therefore, it is not equal to the other two, which happen instantly.

A player takes all prizes = game over
A player runs out of pokemon in play = game over
A player has 0 cards in his deck + it is the start of that player's turn = game over.

Also, the win condition for prizes and pokemon can interact with each other. Cards in deck never interacts with the other two as a tiebreaking win condition because it can only happen at the start of the turn. You never get to it when one of the other two is achieved. It is never checked at the same time as the other two.

Just to add, if you are removing pokemon from your opponent's bench the conventional way, that is, knocking them out, you are also drawing prizes.

 

[Mystery Thing]

This is incorrect. You even said it yourself. Here, I'll put it in different colors: If you run out of cards to start you turn,...

This win condition has a further condition on it. The other two are instant and end the game no matter where in the game you are. This one only applies at the start of your turn. Therefore, it is not equal to the other two, which happen instantly.

A player takes all prizes = game over
A player runs out of pokemon in play = game over
A player has 0 cards in his deck + it is the start of that player's turn = game over.

Also, the win condition for prizes and pokemon can interact with each other. Cards in deck never interacts with the other two as a tiebreaking win condition because it can only happen at the start of the turn. You never get to it when one of the other two is achieved. It is never checked at the same time as the other two.

By that logic, the other two also have conditions applied to them. If you run out of Pokémon in play but only if your opponent doesn't also at the same time, and If you take all your prizes but only if your opponent doesn't also at the same time.

Running out of cards to draw is the only win (well, loss) condition that can't be vetoed by one of the other win conditions. In a way, that actually makes it superior to the other two - it's the only one that is an explicit game state condition that cannot be interfered with.


Anyways, the point is, all three are equally legitimate win conditions. Arbitrarily placing a heavier value on one rather than the other seems strange to me. Even if we reject everything I've said and accept everything that you said, then there's still then the question of why should prize count take precedence over how many Pokémon you have left in play. Both are instantaneous (assuming they aren't interfered with), and both can happen at any time. Why make one of them irrelevant after the +3 and the other not?

 

[FunnyBear]

I suppose the argument of precedence of one win condition over another is based on prevalence. If 93% of the games end by prizes, 6% by benching, and 1% by Decking, it makes sense to use closeness to the prize win condition to judge the game state. This is more fair than what we currently do, but not completely fair. Completely fair would be to adjudicate games, but would probably be impractical.

 

[ShadowCard]

By that logic, the other two also have conditions applied to them.

If you wish to look at it that way, then yes. It doesn't change the fact that, no matter how many other conditions inherent to each win condition we see, "cards in deck" has +1 condition relative to the other two.

Running out of cards to draw is the only win (well, loss) condition that can't be vetoed by one of the other win conditions. In a way, that actually makes it superior to the other two - it's the only one that is an explicit game state condition that cannot be interfered with.

You could look at it that way. In that way, it still means the three are not equal.

...there's still then the question of why should prize count take precedence over how many Pokémon you have left in play. Both are instantaneous (assuming they aren't interfered with), and both can happen at any time. Why make one of them irrelevant after the +3 and the other not?

In the tiebreakers, it could be an idea that you check the number of pokemon in play first, and if those are equal then look at the prizes.

As signofzeta said,"if you are removing pokemon from your opponent's bench the conventional way, that is, knocking them out, you are also drawing prizes." While it is possible to build a deck with the goal of benching the opponent (I had a Dark Machamp deck years ago), a deck that ends up clearing the bench takes prizes and moves towards the win condition of taking prizes. So, that is the condition we tend to look at to measure progress of the game.

No matter what win conditions and tiebreakers we prefer, the point this thread is making is ties should be not be so easy. They may be a necessity because of a time constraint but it should not be a normal for the game to adopt. Call a tie (be it equal prizes, equal pokemon in play, equal cards in deck) a tie, but don't look at the progress of the game (be it 5 prizes to 1 prize, the bench cleared with lone active remaining, or 2 cards left in a deck) which shows one player closer to achieving a win condition over the other player and call it a tie. It isn't a tie. For a tie to be so easy to obtain makes time more intrusive upon game play because it nullifies progress in the game that should be recognized.

 

[jbcheshire]

How about they adjust the amount of points that are awarded for wins, ties, and losses. Like they do in hockey.
Let's say you win before time is called, then you get 3 points. If time is called and you do the +3 and there is not a clear winner, then award points this way:
the one with fewer prize cards will be declared the winner but only gets 2 points and the other person will get 1 point for the "loss". This way points are still handed out and sting of losing is not as great...

 

[losjackal]

Interesting proposal above. In short, you are saying the person ahead in prizes in a tie gets an additional point. I'm not sure, but I'm sensing that the total points awarded in a tie (2) has to be less than the points awarded for a win (3). If they are equal, I think you're opening the door to much more gamesmanship with intentional draws.

Catching up on some replies...

Frag limit and ahead on frags are just variations on the same win condition: get as many frags as you can.

Prizes are not points. Points in sports or other games don't factor into the game mechanic like prizes do: at the beginning you can't use 10% of your deck, taking prize gives you an additional usable card. Some attacks and card effects are based on how many prizes are taken. Just so many reasons they are not equivalent the points.

I'm going to say that ties are probably a very good indicator of the game state. If all you've got is a fully-loaded Genesect EX and the opponent just attached a Silver Mirror, you just aren't going to win no matter how many more turns there are. Yesterday I witnessed an incredible play whereby an opponent forced a tie by topdecking an energy, attaching to a Wartortle, and flipping Heads on its Withdraw attack to prevent damage from a Keldeo with 6 energies on the next and last turn of the game. Is this kind of tactical play not to be rewarded with a tie?

Rules of the game has 3 win conditions and no time limits. Rules of the tournament do impose time limits. Players show up to play by both, in the design of their deck and the choices they make in-game. If neither player manages to satisfy a win condition in the allotted time, then you are awarded a tie.


Now, we could truly have a new discussion that questions whether 30+3 is enough time given the format and new rules…personally I really like +3, because it prevents players from manipulating the clock. But I'm currently feeling that games could use 5 more minutes in general.

 

[pokeMATHter]

and if the players are tied on prizes, then it is one match point each? I seem to remember that WotC did something like that back when they handled Organized Play for Pokemon (prior to 2003)

David

 

[DukeFireBird]

If tournaments were un-timed, then there would be no ties as each game is played to completion. With time limits, you have to establish a medium. Granted a 5-1 prize deficit may look lopsided, but then you have to consider the decks. I love the "game over" deck, where you take 0 prizes, while benching you opponent. That deck is designed to play from behind. Just because my opponent has taken 5 prizes, does not mean he is going to win a match. Ive even seen some current games that go from a 6-2 deficit to victory in a matter of 3 turns. The fairest way to call an incomplete game is just that, incomplete. So when time is called, the game win count is 0-0, and current game is ignored, looks like a tie. In a matter of there MUST be a winner, then you have to allot for a system in place to determine that, and thats where the ahead on prizes comes into play. Swiss does not HAVE to have a winner, however top cut does (barring certain circumstances).

 

[losjackal]

Ive even seen some current games that go from a 6-2 deficit to victory in a matter of 3 turns. The fairest way to call an incomplete game is just that, incomplete.

This. Yes, there are shenanigans like Silver Mirror. But we have a real meta deck (Blastoise) that can take 6 prizes in 3 turns (Black Kyurem) and is often coming from behind.

This ahead on prizes thing cuts both ways, too. Let's say a deck was "winning" for 30 minutes against Blastoise, and managed to take 3 prizes in 30 minutes. But in the +3 turns, Blastoise was able to finally set up properly and took their four prizes. Blastoise is now "winning" 4 prizes to 3. Are they suddenly the more deserving winner? I mean, we all know half a turn often makes the difference in a game. But that game ought to naturally conclude, not by the tournament artificially determining a winner based on criteria. That only feels like the right thing to do because that's how it worked most recently.

 

[LOLZ]

How about they adjust the amount of points that are awarded for wins, ties, and losses. Like they do in hockey.
Let's say you win before time is called, then you get 3 points. If time is called and you do the +3 and there is not a clear winner, then award points this way:
the one with fewer prize cards will be declared the winner but only gets 2 points and the other person will get 1 point for the "loss". This way points are still handed out and sting of losing is not as great...

That is an interesting idea, 2 issues.

1- While not the point of this thread, IDing still exist with that idea.
2- Similar to IDing, what happens if players figure out that 1 player needs 2 points to cut and the other player only needs 1 to cut. Like IDs we have more manipulation on players part to try to get their record/match points into good enough position to make Top 8 cut. Please can we have the result of gameplay decide players records and who makes cut...


Here is an idea (hopefully it doesn't get me lynched)
Best of 1- Game incomplete at the end of time, neither player achieved a win condition as defined in the rulebook, Double Loss (0 Points)

Best of 3- Game 1 & Game 3. Match incomplete at the end of time, Game count tied, both players did not meet the requirement to win 2 games. Double Loss (0 Points)
Best of 3- Game 2. Match incomplete at the end of time, Game count is 1-0 in Player A's favor, Player A did not meet the requirement to win 2 games. (2 Points for Player A, 0 Points for Player B)

 

[losjackal]

So if you 2-0 someone, you get 3 points.
If you 1-0 someone, you get 2 points.
Any other outcome nets you zero points.

It says a tie has zero value in a tournament, and I don't see the logic in that.

 

[JandPDS]

This. Yes, there are shenanigans like Silver Mirror. But we have a real meta deck (Blastoise) that can take 6 prizes in 3 turns (Black Kyurem) and is often coming from behind.

This ahead on prizes thing cuts both ways, too. Let's say a deck was "winning" for 30 minutes against Blastoise, and managed to take 3 prizes in 30 minutes. But in the +3 turns, Blastoise was able to finally set up properly and took their four prizes. Blastoise is now "winning" 4 prizes to 3. Are they suddenly the more deserving winner? I mean, we all know half a turn often makes the difference in a game. But that game ought to naturally conclude, not by the tournament artificially determining a winner based on criteria. That only feels like the right thing to do because that's how it worked most recently.

Yes due to time contraints set by the time limit they were ahead 4 prizes taken to 3 so they should be declared the winner of the game.

 

[losjackal]

You're citing a previous rule as a reason, you're not explaining why. The first player was ahead in prizes for 30 minutes. Why don't they deserve something for that?