Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Slow play

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to agree with Jay about the Cosmic/Cynthia's thing. To me, that just seems too much like the judges trying to play the games for the players. I can understand why that could seem like trying to stall/slowplay, but I think there's a number of reasons why one would do that, even if it is seemingly worthless. I definitely don't want rules to be adjusted (or judges to start ruling) in such a way that would make plays like that illegal/subject to penalties.
 
This forum is needed. I have an idea of how to stop this horrible problem in Pokemon tcg. So 1 offical match can only last 40 minutes right? Then what if each player could only have 20 minutes of play in 1 game and if he/she exceeded this time, they lost!
This seems like a good solution to me!
 
^but how would they enforce this rule? This could result in cheating, like if someone was losing and they were more than 3/4 of the way finished with the game, they could just say "Hey, you used more than 20 minutes for your turns, so I win."
 
The chess-like timer idea would create absolute equity in game-time allocation, but it would take a huge mind-shift. When time runs out, we're so used to winning based on prize count. It would be a "tough pill to swallow" if you lost on time when you were way ahead on prizes.

Perhaps in chess, it's "acceptable" to lose a game on time when you're dominating the match and only a couple-three moves from checkmate. It would take quite a change-of-attitude to make that acceptable in Pokemon.
 
yes, and that would eliminate what i think to be the biggest problem in pokemon tcg. Stalling is something that needs to be fixed.
 
magmurder said:
when your 20 minutes was up you would automaticaly lose. The game ends when your 20 minutes is up
Click to expand...

Actually what I'm saying is, how do you KNOW when your 20 minutes were up? There are 2 people in a game and they alternate between turns. Chess timers could work, but as SteveP said it would be tough to make the shift from winning from prizes, to losing because you take long turns.
 
Personally I would support a Time than 4 more turns (yugioh style) or time and 1 more turn either way a player would not want time called on his turn. I this would cut down on the stalling SteveP is worried about yet still allow players to take their turns without worrying about makeing moves that seem "questionable" to the judges.
 
^ that could work. or (I know this sounds crazy) what if there was no time limit but each game could only last something like 15 turns?
 
Limiting turn counts is a bad idea.

What Jay suggested (and I did earlier) a time + x amount of turns per player is the perfect suggestion, imo.

Having a chess clock would sort of work, but the only issue then is that how do you determine things like Warp Point, Wager, etc? I don't think there's a completely fair way to deal with that. I also don't think that this would go over well with most younger players.
 
I really have not seen much of a problem with stalling once the game time increased from 30 min to 40. That extra 10 min made it real hard to make stalling effective. Although its not stalling locking up a dark spirtomb when they have a Nidoqueen in play can be very amusing.
 
Stallers are the scum of the earth - if you suspect your opponent to be stalling you out, call a judge asap. A lot of people have run into stallers. I actually missed out on a World Championships top 32 because of it (whiffed at 17th in my wing after having been stalled out). Luckily, it's usually the same folks that try it, so try to get an idea of who they are, and watch them closely.
 
So, the time + turns has worked well for a number of other games.

20 minutes each leads to a viable new strategy, I build a deck that I can play quickly, and you can't beat me in your 20 minutes. I draw 0 prizes, you fail to draw 6, and I've got you. Also, cards like Power Spray and Alakazam can eat up your opponent's 20 minutes. How is the time in between turns handled? Really messy, I'm totally convinced the current system is better.

SteveP, I know you said you were going to let everyone fight it out, but I feel like there is a problem with asking judges to be too insightful to the 'realness' of what is going on.
-If I see my opponent needs an energy to retreat/attack whichever, and they fail to get one off of Roseanne/Cyrus, and I start using an attack like Inviting Trap or Luring Flame to try and make them waste the energy. For argument's sake, I also am out of energy, but I'm ahead on prizes. I might not be able to win outright, but it is clear that I can win on time, or even prevent my opponent from winning indefinitely (he's got 2 claydols, I have 1). If we're asking judges to be insightful for purposes of stalling, why not hold them to that standard in other situations, more complex ones? I think the opponent on the receiving end of the Inviting Trap might like it, but their opponent probably views their actions as highly tactical (which I'd be forced to agree with).
 
ChaoJim - The Game Tempo section of the Penalty Guidelines is quite clear about game-time allocation being equitable to both players. Even if the judge can't or doesn't want to ascertain whether an action "has an effect" or not, the judge can still penalize players for "time monopoly." If the judge feels you are taking an unfair share of the game-time, per the guidelines, you CAN be penalized.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I too like the game + X turns idea, though I think it should randomly be X or X-1; that way, you can't tell who's turn will be the last until you flip a coin at the start of the extention.
 
Last edited:
In regrads to the game + x turns idea, and specifically SteveP's thoughts, they could consider a mechanism adopted from Warhammer 40k that helps make game endings more dynamic: In WH40K, at the end of every round (One round being one turn for each player) starting with the 5th, a player rolls a die, and depending on the outcome, the game ends or continues. At round 5, a 1-2 (on a six sided die) ends the game; at round 6, a 1-4 ends the game; at round 7 the game ends no matter what. The important thing is that in each of the final rounds, you don't know weather you'll get another turn (unless you make it to round 7).

Obviously it would have to be tweaked and refined to fit the Pokemon game, but it could work as far as wrapping up a game without letting a player reliably lean on the time cutoff.
 
gameryamen also has a cool idea about a random ending. I play a boardgame called EVO that uses that same mechanic to end the game. Other than probabilities, you don't know until the moment it happens when the game will end, except when the "meteor" hits, like the 7th turn in Warhammer.
 
You guys would get so much complaining on luck if you did a random turn base endings. And SteveP I think your trying to give the judges to much power in deciding games. You can read into the penalty guidelines as much as you like but judges are not supposed to decide games players are Judges watch over the game in attempts to make it fair. Tell me I'm not allowed to play supporters, energy, or use Pokepowers seems like a judge getting to involve imo. If your interested in deciding games i really suggest you just grab deck.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top