Single game tie rule needs to be revisited

[Pajamas]

You're quoting how to resolve a single game match.

Everyone else is talking about how to resolve a 3 game match were time is called during the first game.

Is there a difference? Assuming both players were on time to the match, section 8.2 says an unfinished single-game match is a tie, and section 8.3 says an unfinished best-of-three match that is still in game 1 is a tie.

 

[FunnyBear]

Because they are winning when time is called.
.

Wrong. "winning" is a conjugation of a verb which describes a state of affairs assuming a projection of the future progression of the game as if it proceeded to a conclusion, which is a "win". If you are going to lose in two turns regardless of prize position and card draws, you are not winning. You are losing.

 

[ShadowCard]

Wrong. "winning" is a conjugation of a verb which describes a state of affairs assuming a projection of the future progression of the game as if it proceeded to a conclusion, which is a "win". If you are going to lose in two turns regardless of prize position and card draws, you are not winning. You are losing.

You're trying to overcomplicated this.

To project out a number of turns is conditional at best. We're not taking what may happen. As an objective measure of where the game is, "who is winning at a specific point in the game," specifically when time is called after +3 turns, it is the player ahead of prizes.

 

[signofzeta]

Wrong. "winning" is a conjugation of a verb which describes a state of affairs assuming a projection of the future progression of the game as if it proceeded to a conclusion, which is a "win". If you are going to lose in two turns regardless of prize position and card draws, you are not winning. You are losing.

When I watch sports, I view the team that is winning at any given point in time is the team that has the higher score. As such, I view the player that is winning, the player who drew the most prize cards.

I guess with the timed event, drawing your prizes as efficiently as possible is part of the game, thus if you can't draw your prizes when time is up, or you suddenly got your groove, and you only draw one prize, the same amount of time it takes for your opponent to draw 5, I don't think you are by any means winning.

An analogy I can make is with hockey, where one team score 8 goals in the first period, because the other team was playing sloppy, but starting in the second period, the team that scores 8 goals starts to slack off, and the team that was playing sloppy started to up their game. In the final seconds of the third, the score is 7-8, and the time is up, game is over. Guess who won?

Better example. First person shooter multiplayer deathmatch. You can set frag limit and/or time limit. The way that works if you set time limit to 5 minutes, and frag limit to 50 frags, or kills, or whatever you want to call it, is that the person who reaches the frag limit first wins, but if the time runs out, the person with the most frags win. It is just simpler this way.

 

[losjackal]

The sports analogies are flawed, though. Those games…football, hockey, FPS deathmatch…they don't have other win conditions. Pokemon does.

Furthermore, there is no equivalent of a "score" in Pokemon. Yes, the leader in points wins in football when time runs out. But prizes are not points. The win condition for football is to have the higher score. The win condition in Pokemon is to take all 6 prizes.

The "ahead in prizes" rule in Pokemon exists when a winner must be determined. The NFL allows for ties too, under the right circumstances.


If you want to argue that not having ties in single game swiss is "better", we'll need more persuasive arguments. A big counter-argument I would have is, why would being ahead in prizes be acceptable in a single game, but not in Best of 3? Because if you also implement it in Best of 3, you'll increase the number of overall matches that ends in a tie, with the player ahead in prizes in Game 2 being awarded a win and the match ending 1-1 thus a tie.

 

[signofzeta]

The sports analogies are flawed, though. Those games…football, hockey, FPS deathmatch…they don't have other win conditions. Pokemon does.

Furthermore, there is no equivalent of a "score" in Pokemon. Yes, the leader in points wins in football when time runs out. But prizes are not points. The win condition for football is to have the higher score. The win condition in Pokemon is to take all 6 prizes.

The "ahead in prizes" rule in Pokemon exists when a winner must be determined. The NFL allows for ties too, under the right circumstances.


If you want to argue that not having ties in single game swiss is "better", we'll need more persuasive arguments. A big counter-argument I would have is, why would being ahead in prizes be acceptable in a single game, but not in Best of 3? Because if you also implement it in Best of 3, you'll increase the number of overall matches that ends in a tie, with the player ahead in prizes in Game 2 being awarded a win and the match ending 1-1 thus a tie.

Just to correct you on FPS deathmatch, as I said before, you can win if you reach the frag limit, or if you have the most frags when the time runs out, hence, two ways to win.

The only time I think the person with more prizes should win is if that person knocks out the last pokemon in the next turn, or manages to pick up all the remaining prizes. If the person with more prizes has control of the game, but takes 2, no, 3 or more turns to achieve victory, then I wouldn't award that person the win. So basically saying, why not do something where the person with more prizes not drawn win if that person can pull off a victory in 2 turns? Heck, give those turns a time limit if need be to prevent players from stalling.

 

[JandPDS]

The sports analogies are flawed, though. Those games…football, hockey, FPS deathmatch…they don't have other win conditions. Pokemon does.

Furthermore, there is no equivalent of a "score" in Pokemon. Yes, the leader in points wins in football when time runs out. But prizes are not points. The win condition for football is to have the higher score. The win condition in Pokemon is to take all 6 prizes.

The "ahead in prizes" rule in Pokemon exists when a winner must be determined. The NFL allows for ties too, under the right circumstances.


If you want to argue that not having ties in single game swiss is "better", we'll need more persuasive arguments. A big counter-argument I would have is, why would being ahead in prizes be acceptable in a single game, but not in Best of 3? Because if you also implement it in Best of 3, you'll increase the number of overall matches that ends in a tie, with the player ahead in prizes in Game 2 being awarded a win and the match ending 1-1 thus a tie.

Because we do have points in Pokémon. Prizes taken are points. Saying that there is not is ignoring years of precedent. Maybe we should reinstitute the 4 prize rule so if someone is ahead and took at least 4 prizes then they win the game.

 

[signofzeta]

Because we do have points in Pokémon. Prizes taken are points. Saying that there is not is ignoring years of precedent. Maybe we should reinstitute the 4 prize rule so if someone is ahead and took at least 4 prizes then they win the game.

To elaborate on this further, you could basically have a time limit, but no prize limit, that is, the person who draws the most prizes wins. It isn't how the game is played, but the 6 prize thing is sort of how MTG has 20 life, and YGO has 8000 life points. It is an quantity that the designers of this game has set to create a threshold of victory.

In every game I see, where there is no score limit, but there is a time limit, the team that has the most points always wins. It is like that with every game.

I thought up of the 2 turn overtime rule, where if you can't win in 2 turns, and you are the one with more prizes not drawn, then you lose. It's so much simpler. The 2 turns is to let your opponent have a chance to set up a defense in order to allow that person to win. Heck, having a overtime time limit is also optional, where the time only runs when it is your turn, but not your opponent's turn. If the opponent decides to stall, the opponent is only wasting his/her time, considering there is no reason to stall, since the opponent practically won already.

Could you even imagine pokemon TCG without the 6 prize limit? Heck, you don't even have to draw prizes, just take not of the number of prizes you would have drawn. If that were the case, like every other game, those who would have drawn the most prizes before time runs out is the winner. It's just simpler that way.

 

[Mystery Thing]

Because we do have points in Pokémon. Prizes taken are points. Saying that there is not is ignoring years of precedent. Maybe we should reinstitute the 4 prize rule so if someone is ahead and took at least 4 prizes then they win the game.

Durant would have argued that the game isn't only scored on the first to 6, but also the first to 60.

If prizes were the only way to win a game, then yes, it makes more sense to have prize count be relevant at the end of the game. But when there's three different equally legitimate ways to win, why should one take precedence over the other two when time is called?

 

[signofzeta]

Durant would have argued that the game isn't only scored on the first to 6, but also the first to 60.

If prizes were the only way to win a game, then yes, it makes more sense to have prize count be relevant at the end of the game. But when there's three different equally legitimate ways to win, why should one take precedence over the other two when time is called?

I wouldn't say that decking out your opponent as scoring points, because it is more likely that you aren't decking out your opponent, but your opponent doing it to decking out. It is also true that drawing 6 prizes is more likely than decking out your opponent. As such, I would put that behind the 6 prizes and full knockout win condition. To make the full knockout relevant, I said before that there should be 2 extra turns for the player with more prizes, to either miraculously draw the remaining prizes, or knock out the last pokemon, or for the opponent to draw that last card.

I am wondering about this. Why would Pokemon cut a game short because of time limit, but not MTG or YGO? I mean, how long does a pokemon game usually take? 40 minutes?

 

[Bilbo Baggins]

I mean, how long does a pokemon game usually take? 40 minutes?

20 minutes easily for me. If you take out those 3-5 minute one turn people pull it's very easy to cut down time. If something drastic was on the line then I can see long turns due to the prizes n such tho.

 

[ShadowCard]

If you want to argue that not having ties in single game swiss is "better", we'll need more persuasive arguments. A big counter-argument I would have is, why would being ahead in prizes be acceptable in a single game, but not in Best of 3? Because if you also implement it in Best of 3, you'll increase the number of overall matches that ends in a tie, with the player ahead in prizes in Game 2 being awarded a win and the match ending 1-1 thus a tie.

You presented the counter-argument to your counter-argument. The point is to reduce the number of ties. "ahead of prizes" should be implemented in single-game swiss to reduce the number of ties. "ahead of prizes" should remain out of best-of-3 to reduce the number of ties.

If you don't like that, we did have a 4-prize rule. Re-implimenting that would help reduce the ties in best of 3 due to the second game.

Durant would have argued that the game isn't only scored on the first to 6, but also the first to 60.

If prizes were the only way to win a game, then yes, it makes more sense to have prize count be relevant at the end of the game. But when there's three different equally legitimate ways to win, why should one take precedence over the other two when time is called?

They are not all equal. The 0 cards in deck is the inferior condition because it does not end the game like the other two do. So, it's really not even first to 60. It is first to 60 AND avoid the other two win conditions from happening first.

The slow play should be called when it's occurring mid game. If you wait till +3 to come out and say slow play, it's just words at that point to the judges.

Slow play is normally a pattern. The judge is asked to monitor the pace of play. It is unusual (but it does happen) that it is a single slow play situation earns a warning or higher. The judge may not even observe the slow play you wanted him to see.

But you are also relying on the judge's experience and strength. Will the judge recognize the signs of slow play? There are judges who will NOT speak up in a slow play situation. There are judges who DO speak up in a slow play situation and they are called overzealous.

I am wondering about this. Why would Pokemon cut a game short because of time limit, but not MTG or YGO? I mean, how long does a pokemon game usually take? 40 minutes?

Reading the threads about tournaments in Japan, their rounds that lead up to "top cut" are played untimed. The structure rewards consecutive wins in a time range. You have to keep up the game play speed to reach the target. The more games you play, the better the chances of obtaining the target. You play less games if you are playing slowly. Playing slowly is more of a detriment to yourself. It sets back your opponent in the over all event too but he can make up for it in the next round if he wins.

I would like to see time be less of a role in games in favor of a structure where a slow player is more of a detriment to himself or herself than to the opponent.

 

[FunnyBear]

I am wondering about this. Why would Pokemon cut a game short because of time limit, but not MTG or YGO? I mean, how long does a pokemon game usually take? 40 minutes?

I'll opine on this. As a game targeted to Juniors, I think it is more appropriate to have a finite end to it. Could you imagine a 30 min game where one kid just keeps beating another 23-0 until time is called? As it is a 6-0 game brings some of them to the edge of tears.

 

[FunnyBear]

If we're going to be using sports analogies, I suppose we could look at a baseball game with a team at bat bottom of the 9th, with the bases loaded, no outs, but down by one run. I'm not sure what the odds are, but I imagine lots of folks would bet on the team behind with the better "board position". A similar analogy could be made with football, 1st down, 3 yd line, 2 points behind. There is an analogue to board position in baseball and football, though maybe not hockey, soccer, or basketball.

 

[signofzeta]

If we're going to be using sports analogies, I suppose we could look at a baseball game with a team at bat bottom of the 9th, with the bases loaded, no outs, but down by one run. I'm not sure what the odds are, but I imagine lots of folks would bet on the team behind with the better "board position". A similar analogy could be made with football, 1st down, 3 yd line, 2 points behind. There is an analogue to board position in baseball and football, though maybe not hockey, soccer, or basketball.

Baseball may not have a time limit, but football does. Yeah, you are 2 points behind, but the clock says 0:00 in the 4th quarter, guess who lost? If it was 0:01, you may have gotten a field goal, but the time is 0:00.

I've also seen a lot of hockey games where one team plays so well in the first period, and they start to slack off on the second and third periods, while the team tries to catch up. When time is up, the team that is catching up is down by one goal, thus losing the game. Yeah, the first team had better board position for 20 minutes, while the other team had better board position for 40 minutes, but either way, the second team couldn't score that many points in a fast enough time to warrant a comeback.

With any sport, or video game that has a time limit, and sometimes a score limit to go on top of that time limit, when time is up, the team with the higher score always wins. Just because a team played so well in the last minute does not make that team the winner. If they played so well, they wouldn't have put themselves in such a rut in the first place.

In any timed sport, or game, there is no such thing as woulda, coulda, shoulda. You didn't score enough points, well in this case, the primary way to score is to draw prizes, then you lose.

There are also total knockouts so again, I think the rule of having 2 extra turns for the person who is to be the loser, because he still has prizes not drawn, to take those turns and try to win. If the future dictates that that person is the victor, then that person should take 2 more turns, no more, no less. This is to help those who are about to win by total knockout.

The whole milling deckout thing shouldn't be a win condition when time runs out. Most likely, it would hamper on people using searches and card draws, so that win condition won't be looked at when time runs out. Prize amount takes precedent over number of cards left.

 

[SMP88]

The whole reason we have ties now is because there are so many different win conditions in Pokemon.

In sports or the other examples there's one win condition. Usually, it's score more points than your opponent after a given amount of time. Pokemon is different in that there are first, 3 different win conditions, and second, these win conditions can occur at any point in time. The game also doesn't care which win condition you achieve. You don't get extra match points for taking 6 prizes over benching out your opponent. Therefore, the game can't give certain win conditions preference when time is called.

For every instance of someone being up in prizes who is clearly going to win, there's an instance of someone being up in prizes and only having 1 Pokemon with no energy left to their opponent having a fully powered bench. Or you're up in prizes but have no cards left in deck. You can't just decide that one win condition is more important than another, especially since the game doesn't. Thus, we have ties when a win condition isn't met after time is called.

 

[Mystery Thing]

They are not all equal. The 0 cards in deck is the inferior condition because it does not end the game like the other two do. So, it's really not even first to 60. It is first to 60 AND avoid the other two win conditions from happening first.

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.

 

[signofzeta]

The whole reason we have ties now is because there are so many different win conditions in Pokemon.

In sports or the other examples there's one win condition. Usually, it's score more points than your opponent after a given amount of time. Pokemon is different in that there are first, 3 different win conditions, and second, these win conditions can occur at any point in time. The game also doesn't care which win condition you achieve. You don't get extra match points for taking 6 prizes over benching out your opponent. Therefore, the game can't give certain win conditions preference when time is called.

For every instance of someone being up in prizes who is clearly going to win, there's an instance of someone being up in prizes and only having 1 Pokemon with no energy left to their opponent having a fully powered bench. Or you're up in prizes but have no cards left in deck. You can't just decide that one win condition is more important than another, especially since the game doesn't. Thus, we have ties when a win condition isn't met after time is called.

This is why I made up the 2 turn overtime rule. If you can't win in 2 turns when you have more prizes remaining, then you don't win. If you are about to get the knockout win, and have all the tools necessary, then you should be able to do it in 2 turns.

Decking out your opponent is always a secondary win condition in every TCG I have played. When you ask a MTG player how you win at MTG, they most likely will say to get your opponent's life to 0. Same with Yugioh with lifepoints from 8000 to 0. They would never first come up with decking out your opponent, so the fact that you have less prizes drawn takes precedent over the number of cards left in your deck.

MTG probably has more decks that try to deck out your opponent than pokemon tcg does.

Maybe there should be a hierarchy as to which win condition comes first when solving a tiebreaker. You could easily say, "oh, my opponent had that one energyless pokemon left, or had that last card to draw", but like in my sports analogies, sometimes you come up short.

I also say prize drawing takes precedent because it is least based on luck. You only get total knockouts if your opponent got unlucky and didn't draw enough pokemon. It is more likely that your opponent would deck him/herself out than you would. Hence, the action of drawing prizes is based less on luck, and that you are the one that tries to draw the prizes by knocking out your opponent's pokemon more than you are trying to mill your opponent. It is more likely you would mill yourself.

To me, having no pokemon left on your bench is like losing to Exodia, or Test of Endurance, or Battle of Wits, or Mortal Combat, or Chance Encounter, or Epic Struggle, with the exception of not having to have an actual card to complete that win condition.

 

[SMP88]

This is why I made up the 2 turn overtime rule. If you can't win in 2 turns when you have more prizes remaining, then you don't win. If you are about to get the knockout win, and have all the tools necessary, then you should be able to do it in 2 turns.

This is already done with +3. Both players get 2 more turns after time is called. You want them to get 2 more turns?

Decking out your opponent is always a secondary win condition in every TCG I have played. When you ask a MTG player how you win at MTG, they most likely will say to get your opponent's life to 0. Same with Yugioh with lifepoints from 8000 to 0. They would never first come up with decking out your opponent, so the fact that you have less prizes drawn takes precedent over the number of cards left in your deck.

MTG probably has more decks that try to deck out your opponent than pokemon tcg does.

It's irrelevant whether players think decking out is a primary or secondary win condition. The game considers all 3 win conditions the same.

Maybe there should be a hierarchy as to which win condition comes first when solving a tiebreaker. You could easily say, "oh, my opponent had that one energyless pokemon left, or had that last card to draw", but like in my sports analogies, sometimes you come up short.

I also say prize drawing takes precedent because it is least based on luck. You only get total knockouts if your opponent got unlucky and didn't draw enough pokemon. It is more likely that your opponent would deck him/herself out than you would. Hence, the action of drawing prizes is based less on luck, and that you are the one that tries to draw the prizes by knocking out your opponent's pokemon more than you are trying to mill your opponent. It is more likely you would mill yourself.

There's no "coming up short" in Pokemon. One player either obtained a win condition before time was called or they didn't. You could even say that if you gave the win to someone based on prizes after time was called you would be giving the win to the player who "came up short" since neither player obtained a win condition. Sports analogies just don't work with Pokemon. They're just too different in how a winner is determined.

The game also doesn't care about things like luck. Once again, you don't get less match points because your opponent only drew one basic. The win you get for that counts the same as the win for the player who took 6 prizes in a closely fought battle.

 

[TRAINER HEZ]

You shouldn't be punished for what style of deck you play, otherwise you'll get everyone playing the same style of aggro deck. Some decks don't take prizes right away, they set up a sweep for late game... and that's a valid game plan.

Even with the old rules you could abuse it, like getting ahead on prizes then stalling until time is called. If neither of you have won at time, a draw is the most fair option.

Sidenote: (I'm really glad they implemented this because draws are even more important in an Unlimited 150 tournament where decks that don't take any prizes are viable such as mill or lost zone. It allows us to run the official tournament rules whilst not penalizing different win conditions.)