Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

RULES UPDATE: Game two tie breaker changed. +3 Clarified

Status
Not open for further replies.
NoPoke

NoPoke

Active Member
The tournament rules have been updated.

If you are playing game two of match play then after time is called and the +3 turns have expired the winner of game two is decided by prize difference same as it is now.

The change is that the requirement in game two to take more than half the prizes has been removed.

ref sec 22.3 GAME 2

=====

The +3 turns have been clarified.
If a player draws their final prize card after time has been called, no additional games are started in order to play out any remaining turns.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NoPoke said:
The tournament rules have been updated.

If you are playing game two of match play then after time is called and the +3 turns have expired the winner of game two is decided by prize difference same as it is now.

The change is that the requirement in game two to take more than half the prizes has been removed.

ref sec 22.3 GAME 2

=====

The +3 turns have been clarified.
Click to expand...

Good... I always hated stuff with how many prizes counts for a "complete" game. Potentially cost me a states with that dumb rule. :/

I suppose there's a new way to win now. DPL... just keep adding prizes to their pile, and even though you never take a prize, you'll win by having less prizes than them when time is called. :p (not that I would ever dare use this in a real tourney)
 
Last edited:
wiem0014 said:
Is this true? Link to the updated rules?
Click to expand...
http://www.pokemon.com/us/assets/cms/pdf/op/tournaments/2011/Pokemon_Tournament_Rules.pdf
GAME 2
If the last turn ends during game 2, the player with the fewest Prize cards remaining wins the game.
If both players have the same number of Prize cards remaining, the game continues until a Prize card is drawn. The player drawing the next Prize card wins game 2.
If both players draw their last Prize card (or Knock Out their opponent’s last Pokémon) at the same time, refer to the “What Happens if Both Players Win at the Same Time?” section of the Pokémon TCG rulebook. If necessary, follow the Single Prize Sudden Death rules as outlined in the Pokémon TCG rulebook, including flipping a coin again to see who goes first. The winner of this Single Prize Sudden Death is the winner of game 2.
If this results in one player having won two games in the match, that player wins the match.
If this results in both players having won one game in the match, follow the Single Prize Sudden Death rules as outlined in the Pokémon TCG rulebook, including flipping a coin again to see who goes first. The winner of this Single Prize Sudden Death is the winner of the match.
Click to expand...
This is bad news for Lost World decks. Oh, wait...
 
I'm sorry, but that wording is confusing me a bit. I'm not sure I understand completely the idea that it is trying to get across.

Is it saying that it doesn't matter what prize count is but whoever is ahead after the +3 is the winner of Game 2 even if it is 1-0 in prizes taken?

Drew
 
I think in other words, they're saying that you don't need to take 4 prize cards in game two for the game to be complete anymore.
 
TheDarkTwins said:
I'm sorry, but that wording is confusing me a bit. I'm not sure I understand completely the idea that it is trying to get across.

Is it saying that it doesn't matter what prize count is but whoever is ahead after the +3 is the winner of Game 2 even if it is 1-0 in prizes taken?

Drew
Click to expand...

Yes, it is the person with the least number of prizes remaining that will win in that instance. No more at least 4 prize cards taken by 1 player (for a 60 card deck)

Keith
 
I hope you got this wrong, this is a MAJOR CHANGE and IMO this kills non sp/donk decks.
I can win game one and then my opponent just gets the first price because his deck is faster and wins?!
 
Not taking into account all the implications about gameplay (I'm sure someone else would do it better than me), I must say this "old-back-to-new" rule completely fails at logic.

What was the problem with the "more than 50%" part? And even if there was one, how going back to an even worse rule can be considered as an acceptable solution?

Please enlighten me.
 
Nemes said:
Not taking into account all the implications about gameplay (I'm sure someone else would do it better than me), I must say this "old-back-to-new" rule completely fails at logic.

What was the problem with the "more than 50%" part? And even if there was one, how going back to an even worse rule can be considered as an acceptable solution?

Please enlighten me.
Click to expand...

I'm tossed up on this. It is one of those things that seems a little unfair to the player winning a long Game 1. I never liked the 50%. I felt some games that weren't 50% still had enough happen that they should have counted.

The bigger issue is the following to me. This rule encourages stalling. I mean if I lost G1 and I know we don't have a long time for G2, but take the first prize what is stopping me from playing so that my opponent can't regain the lead. I know there are prevent measures to stop this, but not all judges view stalling as the same thing and therefore won't call it.

On a side note, I think if a player losing (in a normal game) or in overall in top cut, that stalling becomes a tiny bit less of an issue because they need to think more to comeback and it only benefits the other player. However that's something for another thread. I'm just saying due to the fact that G2 being decided by anyone who has a lead can encourage this. However, this was how the rule was before and I didn't really have any issue with it then, but then against I didn't play against SP non-stop.

Drew
 
^ I've had a couple of Top cut games that were in my favor in round 2 when time was called when this rule was first implemented without enough prizes being taken. I can see where it can benefit and cannot benefit at the same time.

In this format, I'm uncertain. SP decks can easily turn the tide if they lost a close game 1. This now doesn't force them to rush which is a little tedious, knowing how SP works.
 
vanderbilt_grad said:
IMHO ... this is a change that had to be made with Dialga & Palkia Legend in format.
Click to expand...

Why "had" to be made? DPL could require a change to the tournament rules but did not require the concept of a "significant" game to be abandoned. For example POP could have switched the 50% count from prizes taken to prizes remaining: fewer than half the starting prize count remaining for a "significant game".

However that is moot as that wasn't what was done.
 
vanderbilt_grad said:
IMHO ... this is a change that had to be made with Dialga & Palkia Legend in format.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is why the changed it. There haven't been many decks/cards that have needed a floor rule changed. GG forced Pokemon to extend time limits to 40 minutes. As soon as it got rotated we went back to 30 but with an added twist. I think this is more of they tried out the 50% rule and maybe the result that they wanted wasn't what they desired so they decided to change it.

Drew
 
#1: "If the last turn ends during game 2, the player with the fewest Prize cards remaining wins the game.

#2: "If both players have the same number of Prize cards remaining, the game continues until a Prize card is drawn. The player drawing the next Prize card wins game 2."
Click to expand...
So if Pakia/Dialga LEGEND gives the opponent two new prize cards when time is called in game 2, and then the opponent proceeds to draw a single prize the next turn (say via Dragon Rush on the bench), the opponent wins even though he's behind in prizes by that point? It does say "The player drawing the next Prize card wins" after all...

It seems like the way it's worded right now, the tied-at-time solution seems to go against the spirit of "fewest Prize cards remaining." This should be changed ASAP to accommodate for Palkia/Dialga, or else you'll have ridiculous situations like the above.

What Sentence two SHOULD be changed to say is this:
"If both players have the same number of Prize cards remaining, the game continues until one player has fewer Prize cards than the other. The player with the fewest Prize cards remaining at this point wins game 2."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I kinda like this rule and kinda hate it at the same time-

1). Like it because last year in TC, my game 2 was ended on time and i was up 3-2 in prizes, but lost game 1 :(

2). Hate it because it just gives SPs another advantage, like they didn't have enough already.

3). DPL IMHO won't impact the game a lot because it is slow, but i think that they need to change the ruling for the above situation, also seems to be kinda stupid to not test this @ Spring BR's like they did w/ 30+3 turns thing, i just think that they should've waited for later in the season or even next season.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top