Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

what should have happened?

H

HYPER EEVEE

Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
Okay here is the scenario

I was at my cc in Modesto, CA

I won my first 4 games then lost my next 1, but won my last. So I was 5-1

We didn’t have a cutoff and that was announced b4 had so that was fine, but I didn’t get first because my friend got 5-1 with a 58% resistance and I got 56% resistance.

The tourney was called then leaving me with second when we could have easily done

A) Another round
B) Top so many cutoff
C) Playoff between top 2

Since it was my friend I was unsure about it

But I believe pop should make it so that tourneys cannot end with top 2 tied without cutoff. I thought that resistance was to determine placement for prizes or top 8 cutoffs and not to decide the winner.

Now this also made me mad my friend played 2 10- kids and I played 3 15+ him playing 1 and me playing no 10- (btw we are in 11-14, but we never played each other). There should also be some sort of compensation for playing higher of lower age groups.

I am happy for my friend its just I feel like I was unfairly shorted a chance to win

People place your input and please state weather u are for or against what I am saying and why.
 
Resistance is, simply, to determine who wins a tie. Period. It's a shame, but your resistance was indeed lower, so you lost the tie break at the end and that was it.
 
Your resistance was lower, you lost. However, if I'm reading this correctly, the fact that you played three 15+ and he played two 10- I have a problem with. I understand this was probably a result of low attendance, but the disparity is just wrong.
 
I dislike separating players based upon resistance. Wherever possible I call it a draw and split the prizes between the two tied players. Now I'm guessing that splitting the prizes is not allowed at CCs or that it is not possible to split the prizes.

If the indivisible prize is an invite to States then ask PUI nicely and they might give you an invite too. That said remember that you still did better than everyone else below you. Sometimes, sadly, life isn't fair. [Ask PUI, they are nice guys and want the best for all their players]
 
Last edited:
One of the -10's he had to play was Reed Weichler, who was the only one that went undefeated that day and won his division. I'm sure thats one of the reasons that his resistance was higher. It's always sad when the winning is at the expense of a friend(or parent). If I had beat him in that last round, I'm almost positive that I would have won my age division, but I couldn't pull it together. I even called the judge over to so show him the situation , my hand, my only pokemon and that there was nothing I could do because I was worried someone might say I threw the game to my son. No one has said that tho so I needn't have worried. I did question the judge before the round when you were playing a 15+ and I was playing a 11-14 when you two should have played, but since I had already played the 15+ guy I guess there was nothing to be done, I don't know. I'm sorry Andrew, like I said I feel bad when it's between friends:(
 
In a CC I went to yesterday I went 4-2. There was a Top 4 cut after 6 rounds of swiss. 3 players went 5-1. The 4th place player after swiss was 4-2 with a resistance of 61%, my resistance was 60%. Worst part was that the player I beat in the 5th round didnt play his last match because he was playing in another tournament in the store or something. After I beat him he said he'd probably drop out and I told him not to because I would need the resistance. So it was upsetting to miss the cut by 1% resistance, especially with having my one opponent drop out of the last round.

I'm not too big a fan of resistance, seeing that I always seem to get jipped because of it--but I can't really complain because I don't know what else can be done. You can't have everyone with the same record play to decide placings at the end. I think that for major tournament like these they should always have at least a T2 cut or a cut-off based on prizes, so for CC a T4 cut. It stinks to lose because of resistance.
 
After awarding a CC Championship last year based on the tiebreaker, I swore I'd NEVER do that again. Thus, I ALWAYS run playoffs for any championship series event. And, for any pre-releases, if the top 2-or-more players are tied, we run a playoff.

Tiebreakers are BAD to use to crown a champ. WOTC/DCI doesn't allow it. Hopefully, PUI/POP will update the rules to not allow it also. JMO.

BTW, the POP rules DO strongly encourage playoffs for "competitive" tournaments like the Championship/Challenge Series tournaments. Bummer that your TO/HJ didn't take that encouragement.
 
Tiebreakers are BAD to use to crown a champ. WOTC/DCI doesn't allow it. Hopefully, PUI/POP will update the rules to not allow it also. JMO.

BTW, the POP rules DO strongly encourage playoffs for "competitive" tournaments like the Championship/Challenge Series tournaments. Bummer that your TO/HJ didn't take that encouragement.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Isnt it a huge contradictarory that ID's are banned but yet to crown a champion some TO's/stores are given the option of not running a top cut and go based on resistance and tie breakers?
 
looking for wailord ex i lost in 5th he lost in 4th =(

but i dont think they should get rid of resistance its just should decide the winner

i think it really helpful for like 2 people who tied for 8th and there was a cutoff

sdpokemom i didnt talk to the judge because again it was my friend who beat me and i didnt want to steal his win i think i was just cut out of my fair chance at winning and pop should make a rule that a tourney cant end based on the winner winning on resistance.
 
Resistance is the only way to determine a winner without playoffs, which is what was advertised. Resistance was created to make a line for play offs that had people tied for the final slot(s) without adding extra, time-consuming rounds (which one can assume is why the tourny was played w/o play-offs for any division in the first place). Although I do not believe a Champion series event should end without a play-off. But what do I think should have happened? Exactly what happened. They said there would be no playoffs, they kept their word, your friend technically won. Making the "any tourney can't be decided by resistance" rule would only frustrate smaller, non-premier TOs who struggle for 8 and typically don't run play offs. A better rule would be "Premier Events must have play offs" perhaps with the exception of Pre-release since rank doesn't matter, only record for ELO rating purposes. After all Premier events are supposed to be a competitive level of play and as such a play off is only natural. Even if its only a Top 2.

Just my $.02
 
thats fine with me with what chris said . I believe there should be a rule there must be a playoff if tied (in a tourney with swiss no cut off) in a premier event that is not a pre.
 
Until it becomes a requirement to "not use tiebreakers to crown a Premier Event champ," TOs who don't run playoffs may use the tiebreakers as outlined in the rules (somewhere it says how to determine a tournament winner when playoffs aren't used -- I just can't remember where).

But, I can't imagine any TOs who would not diligently strive to have playoffs for their State Championships and Gym Challenges. IMO, not having playoffs at those premier events would be tragic.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top