Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Why doesn't Pokemon...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shaw: I guess we should give do overs to poker players who get donked on the river on a 2 % suckout. Or, if you get 4 Aces, but lose to the royal flush....what bad luck! (w/o a bad beat board to boot)

When you play with 60 cards, random and goofy things will happen. What I am hearing though is many players believe it is their god-given right to beat most other players bc they are simply "better" than them. Sorry, that is not how life works. If the smartest person in the USA was president, we wouldnt ever have had GW Bush as a pres (or many others).

The mulligan rule WAS changed by Japan after Worlds a few yrs back, due to the fossil decks and multiple mullys, looking for the "god start". They said no more and made fossils count as basics in the opening hand. PCL and PUI know that luck is part of the game, and they dont aim to change it all out.

Flame away, but that is the truth.

Keith
 
I think the real solution to this problem (which I stated before, and have been backed up on), is to limit players to one Paris Mulligan per game.

With this, you could dump an attrocious hand (Holon Magnemite 4 Rare Candy and 2 Energy sort of thing), but dumping a mediocre hand would be a very tough call. You could get something worse than what you just threw away...This leads to more strategy and thinking about your moves.
 
If a player was allowed to re-shuffle their hand can't that player keep re-shuffling to purposely deck out his opponent? I don't think its a bad idea but its not great either.
 
I agree mulliganing is very much needed in this TCG. MOst of us agree with that. For those of you that say luck is part of the game: well, it is. But if this game is going to go to the next level of professionality that it deserves, we should institute the Paris Mulligan system.

HOWEVER, I don't agree with the whole "Give your opponent a card(s)" thing. The point of Mulliganing is taking the risk that you'll get a better ahnd the second time with less cards. In the POkemon TCG, there's so much card drawing going on that it's obscene at times. Mulligan to 6 could easily mean mulligan to 11 in the right circumstances.

So, here's my opinion: if a person wishes to mulligan, there should be a two card loss on the part of the mulliganer. They draw 6 cards for their next hand (or subsequent hands if that hand does not have any basics) and their opponent may draw one card. If a person wishes to mulligan again in this way, they go down to 5 and their opponent draws another card. As far as raw card advantage goes, this puts the non-mulligan-er at a +2 card advantage for each mulligan taken in this way (and +1 at all other times).

I think this is honestly the most fair system for this TCG. Keeping hand size from the mulligan at 7 raises the chance of a better hand too much IMO. Mulligans should be a penalty (as shown from the basic rules on no basic mulligans) and if we institute the Paris system, we should do dwindling ahnd size as well. However, to prevent cyclical problems (mulliganing to 0 to rpevent the game from starting; mulliganing to 1 to hopefully deck the opponent early), a rule should be put in place to prevent mulligans below 3. If you have a basic at a hand of 3, you msut play it. By this time, if you haven't gotten a decent hand, I doubt you will...
 
Cardzmaster2004 said:
I agree mulliganing is very much needed in this TCG. MOst of us agree with that. For those of you that say luck is part of the game: well, it is. But if this game is going to go to the next level of professionality that it deserves, we should institute the Paris Mulligan system.

HOWEVER, I don't agree with the whole "Give your opponent a card(s)" thing. The point of Mulliganing is taking the risk that you'll get a better ahnd the second time with less cards. In the POkemon TCG, there's so much card drawing going on that it's obscene at times. Mulligan to 6 could easily mean mulligan to 11 in the right circumstances.

So, here's my opinion: if a person wishes to mulligan, there should be a two card loss on the part of the mulliganer. They draw 6 cards for their next hand (or subsequent hands if that hand does not have any basics) and their opponent may draw one card. If a person wishes to mulligan again in this way, they go down to 5 and their opponent draws another card. As far as raw card advantage goes, this puts the non-mulligan-er at a +2 card advantage for each mulligan taken in this way (and +1 at all other times).

I think this is honestly the most fair system for this TCG. Keeping hand size from the mulligan at 7 raises the chance of a better hand too much IMO. Mulligans should be a penalty (as shown from the basic rules on no basic mulligans) and if we institute the Paris system, we should do dwindling ahnd size as well. However, to prevent cyclical problems (mulliganing to 0 to rpevent the game from starting; mulliganing to 1 to hopefully deck the opponent early), a rule should be put in place to prevent mulligans below 3. If you have a basic at a hand of 3, you msut play it. By this time, if you haven't gotten a decent hand, I doubt you will...
Click to expand...

I don't know about keep going -1card every mulligan. Like the best one solution IMHO is a 1 Mulligan and your done deal, but also do a penalty of -1card in hand for the person who had the mulligan, and +2 for their opponent.

It reduces the luck factor enormously, and it's a lot of strategy involved. If you opponent gets a good hand, most decks are build were starting hands are somewhat consistent, imagine giving your opponent a +2 card hand, while you are going to be risking getting a better hand with -1 card. So much to take into consideration where at times you just would keep your decent starting hand instead of going for the good/GOD hand. So if your opponent got a decent starting hand, those +2 cards could make their hand into a GOD hand. Even every skilled players, who would supposedly beat the "Noob" would think about it twice because of those +2 cards, -1 card. Since there are no guarantees that they would get a better hand the second time. With -1 card the chance wouldn't favor them.

We could still keep the current mulligan rule, where if there is no basics then your opponent still only takes 1 instead of 2.

Another thing to take into consideration is the time issue. If you let someone keep shuffling until they have 3 and no less cards in hand it could be a strategy to slow play an opponent with a T2 deck. Which it seems kind of ironic but sometimes 4 cards is all you need to "donk" someone. 3 because you couldn't go any lower and 1 for your first turn draw.

Ralts, Candy Gallade DRE.

Some people still play Infernape.

so if the gallade thing doesn't do it, then:
Chimchar, Candy Infernape DRE, GG.

or even better:
Shuppet, energy vs. basic who has 70 or lower.
 
Last edited:
Okay, if one player has 30 random cards in their hand from their deck, and the other person gets 4, if the 4 person goes second, he could do Sneasel, Wally's Training to Weavile, DRE, and bring the opponent's hand down to 5. Easy.
 
Lawman said:
Shaw: I guess we should give do overs to poker players who get donked on the river on a 2 % suckout. Or, if you get 4 Aces, but lose to the royal flush....what bad luck! (w/o a bad beat board to boot)

When you play with 60 cards, random and goofy things will happen. What I am hearing though is many players believe it is their god-given right to beat most other players bc they are simply "better" than them. Sorry, that is not how life works. If the smartest person in the USA was president, we wouldnt ever have had GW Bush as a pres (or many others).

The mulligan rule WAS changed by Japan after Worlds a few yrs back, due to the fossil decks and multiple mullys, looking for the "god start". They said no more and made fossils count as basics in the opening hand. PCL and PUI know that luck is part of the game, and they dont aim to change it all out.

Flame away, but that is the truth.

Keith
Click to expand...

Okie dokie.

I think that when you are playing games like pokemon, the level of luck involved in the game lies somewhere between complete luck and no luck. In one situation, you have the person who is "better" at the game (which, in my opinion, is very subjective) always winning. This isn't really the most fun thing in the world, because you effectively don't have to play to figure out who will win a game. That being said, luck is always nice to have around.

BUT...

If a game is too luck based, people may as well be flipping a coin to figure out who wins the game. You may as well buy lottery tickets. Unless you are a gambling addict, this isn't all that fun either.

If that makes any sense to you, then it should be obvious that the real problem here is not that there is luck, but that there is too much luck. This is a very reasonable sentiment. I doubt that anyone really wants to remove all luck from pokemon, and if they do, they don't realize how boring pokemon would become. I do think that there is a problem, though, when people very often get dead starts when they are doing their best to prevent it. From my experience playing other card games, I can corroborate that pokemon definitely has a problem with this.
 
Well as many people have said, with a TCG of this size it would require strong revisioning to get those changes done. Such things take time, but it also takes people speaking up about them. The Pokemon Professors obviously have contact with the TCG reps right? I am sure they could discuss their ideas, and concerns with whoever is in charge. Such a change would require a lot of discussion, and these changes take time too. Though people need to speak up and express their concerns rather than believing that their opinions can't bring change. I mean being a single vocal person doesn't make a change, but proposing ideas gets other people to think these changes. I don't know how the structure is between the US Pokemon TCG and it's connections around the world. However, if one region starts discussing the idea it could lead to other areas opening up talks over such. The fact is nothing changes unless people try, and don't just brush aside things as: "I have no real influence over the rules, my voice won't get heard, so why try?".
 
Pokemon Trainer Mikko said:
Well as many people have said, with a TCG of this size it would require strong revisioning to get those changes done. Such things take time, but it also takes people speaking up about them. The Pokemon Professors obviously have contact with the TCG reps right? I am sure they could discuss their ideas, and concerns with whoever is in charge. Such a change would require a lot of discussion, and these changes take time too. Though people need to speak up and express their concerns rather than believing that their opinions can't bring change. I mean being a single vocal person doesn't make a change, but proposing ideas gets other people to think these changes. I don't know how the structure is between the US Pokemon TCG and it's connections around the world. However, if one region starts discussing the idea it could lead to other areas opening up talks over such. The fact is nothing changes unless people try, and don't just brush aside things as: "I have no real influence over the rules, my voice won't get heard, so why try?".
Click to expand...

Q F T, as I have much to add.

I just PM Lawman about a few decisions PUI has made recently. He told me that I should keep stating my opinion because every voice has to be heard. Already of well known and respected people here on the gym and the community in whole have express how we truly believe this isn't a bad idea. Yet others like to keep things the way they are. Which is fine everyone has the right to state their opinion, that's what these boards are for.

So in no way do I feel my voice being small, neither should anyone else. Although I think the big guys (Mike, Dave and others) will simply read past my post since I express how much I dislike some decisions made by them, if they are the ones making them if not then I apologize guys.

So keep stating your opinions, even if you don't support this idea.
 
Well read my signiture on trying to keep up the idea's that would help.

I accept the current rules today, and build decks that are have an ability to be consistent. I favor cards that are consistent and can work as starters. There are pokemon combo's that are great in theory, but in reality can't be consistently achieve, so I don't bother.

Luck complainers are likely off base, and can't accept the fact that it is a luck based game, and deck construction is a skill and truley a risk managment exercise.

Last year I know that Big Chuck (Alex) had played 1 Jolteon star with 4 Shuppet's in his Bannette deck. I said he was better off with another Plus Power, why, because he has a 16% chance of starting with the lone Jolteon star. The risk managment of cards is a part of the game.

If Mulligan rule was modified in any sort of fashion, one would then be allowed to play more risky deck's with a different risk level to sort out. The deck builders would adopt, but the deck builders don't think in terms of LUCK, they always look in terms of management of risk. One optional Mulligan would open up more goofy decks to be played, so I would not be against it.
 
to those saying that people need to "balance" their deck:

It's impossible to make a deck 100% consistent. Most of us make our decks as consistent as possible, but there's always the chance of the ridiculous start. As long as one basic, and 6 energy etc. exist in a deck, there is a chance that you will draw that.

All mulligans do is, assuming no mistakes, the better deck or the better matchup wins. The luck factor still remains in matchups (there is luck in matchups in Magic too, and any other card game) and prizes, as well as flips and TGW.

This game will be much better without the luck in setup.
 
In Swiss you don't have to win every game to make the cut.

In the single elim you don't have to win every game to win the tournament.

Sure there is luck and I've had those awfull starts and energy droughts with decks that wouldn't normally behave that way. The tournament structure allows you to have a bit of bad luck and still win the whole thing.

Would the game be better with reduced setup luck? It would be different that is true. But "better"? Better for whom? Better for you could be worse for me.

[FWIW I've argued in favour of a limited Paris Mulligan in Pokémon tournaments in the past too, but I can see the benefits and the downsides. Have no doubt that there are negatives to the introduction of the Paris Mulligan. On ballance I do think it would help, but no longer believe that it is likely to be implemented after maybe 6 years of supporting the idea. So instead I'll campaign for match play in swiss and more recently a change to the swiss round structure to use round numbers based upon the binomial theorem and not power of two: The X-2 issue. I'd rather direct my efforts to issues I think I have a chance of winning ;). Not that I'm advising you to give up your campaign, though I'm obviously trying to recruit more to the 45 minute match play during swiss campaign and having the number of swiss rounds set to reduce the number of X-2s missing the cut at the big events campaign.]
 
NoPoke said:
In Swiss you don't have to win every game to make the cut.

In the single elim you don't have to win every game to win the tournament.

Sure there is luck and I've had those awfull starts and energy droughts with decks that wouldn't normally behave that way. The tournament structure allows you to have a bit of bad luck and still win the whole thing.

Would the game be better with reduced setup luck? It would be different that is true. But "better"? Better for whom? Better for you could be worse for me.

[FWIW I've argued in favour of a limited Paris Mulligan in Pokémon tournaments in the past too, but I can see the benefits and the downsides. Have no doubt that there are negatives to the introduction of the Paris Mulligan. On ballance I do think it would help, but no longer believe that it is likely to be implemented after maybe 6 years of supporting the idea. So instead I'll campaign for match play in swiss and more recently a change to the swiss round structure to use round numbers based upon the binomial theorem and not power of two: The X-2 issue. I'd rather direct my efforts to issues I think I have a chance of winning ;). Not that I'm advising you to give up your campaign, though I'm obviously trying to recruit more to the 45 minute match play during swiss campaign and having the number of swiss rounds set to reduce the number of X-2s missing the cut at the big events campaign.]
Click to expand...


hmm actaully 45 min match play would be a great idea, but some tournaments run would run way too long so is it really possible to implement it? Like with 45 min match play, states would have ran till like 9-10pm
 
90 minutes extra on a 6 round tournament.

1 hour registration, 6 hours swiss, 1 hour lunch, 3 hours T8. With a 10am start most players are done by 6pm, but you are right the staff will be there till after 9pm and will have arrived for 9am. Are the staff up for it?

Addressing X-2s missing the cut will typically require an extra swiss round. With reduced top cuts, which I suspect will be the standard for premiere events in future, the X-2 issue would require an extra couple of swiss rounds at the bigger tournaments. 90 minutes extra. Whenever I think about it I always end up concluding that many of the issues that players have with tournaments can be addressed with an extra 90 minutes of play.

The benefits are there waiting to be reaped, but the cost is 90 minutes. Is 90 minutes too much?
 
NoPoke said:
90 minutes extra on a 6 round tournament.

1 hour registration, 6 hours swiss, 1 hour lunch, 3 hours T8. With a 10am start most players are done by 6pm, but you are right the staff will be there till after 9pm and will have arrived for 9am. Are the staff up for it?

Addressing X-2s missing the cut will typically require an extra swiss round. With reduced top cuts, which I suspect will be the standard for premiere events in future, the X-2 issue would require an extra couple of swiss rounds at the bigger tournaments. 90 minutes extra. Whenever I think about it I always end up concluding that many of the issues that players have with tournaments can be addressed with an extra 90 minutes of play.

The benefits are there waiting to be reaped, but the cost is 90 minutes. Is 90 minutes too much?
Click to expand...

Very good point, starting a tournament at 10 instead of at 1 and implementing 2/3 match play would have a similar effect as allowing mulligans, and PUI has complete control over that, unlike how they don't have control over the mulligan rules (PCL does). Although it wouldn't reduce luck as drastically as the mulligan rule would, it would still be a huge step in the right direction.
 
Our first state tournament under PUI was a best-of-3 format and ran from 9am to 11pm.

Best-of-3 is wonderful (WOTC did it for their last Worlds), but the logistics can be massive.

I support a 1-time free mulligan, but you draw 6 instead of 7 cards.

You haven't played Pokemon until you've hand crapped.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top