Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Cyrus Seems like the triumphant FAQ agrees with you

Q. In a game that goes to time and is tied, if I add prizes to my opponent's field with Palkia & Dialga LEGEND's "Time Control" attack on my next turn, do I win?
{A. Yes. After regulation time (plus any additional turns) is completed, once you have fewer prizes remaining than your opponent, you win.}
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The other thing they could have tried was to require a fixed prize advantage. In other words, the player would need to be ahead by a certain number of prizes (say 2) for the partial game to count. Just an idea.
 
If this is true it is the single-largest mistake in the history of POP/PLAY. Few of you seem to fathom the unfairness of removing the 4-prize rule. This means if you now win a very long Game 1, Game 2 can be called in the first few turns, meaning your opponent can take Game 2 in as little as three turns. Then, for Game 3? Sudden death again. Yeah, you can 6-0 someone Game 1, only to lose Games 2 & 3 by your opponent drawing a total of two prize cards: one per game.

Absolutely devastating. Do not underestimate this rule change. I will hope something got mixed up and this isn't the case.
 
This puts me on the fence. It ruins lost world (a deck imo bad for the game), but encourages stalling and further establishes the dominance of SP.
 
Kinda interesting how no one seems to care about this INSANE rule change.
 
Volt said:
Kinda interesting how no one seems to care about this INSANE rule change.
Click to expand...

We are discussing it on the professor boards.

I can tell you I don't like this chance.
I had to run a BR (last one on oct 30) under this new rule and I didn't like how this rule turned out.
Since we use Best of 3 in Swiss I had enough examples of how much (in my view negative) impact this had.
 
Rainbowgym said:
We are discussing it on the professor boards.
Click to expand...

I look forward to accessing the prof boards, I've sent polite requests the last two weeks to be added to the access list. I am sure there is much busyness at Pokemon as we enter the holiday shopping season, plus recovering from Battle Roads, dealing with Prereleases, and preparing for Cities, so I will show patience.

In the meantime, is there anything, respecting confidentiality, that profs and prof judges are free to share here. I would like to have the benefit of your collected wisdom going into my next round of local judging, and I am sure players would benefit from your additional input.

Thanks, and cheers.
 
Re my concern from earlier - looks like that got answered by Dan:

"Yuppers.

The new text in sections 22.2 and 22.3 will be varients [sic] on:


If both players have the same number of Prize cards remaining, the current game continues, starting with any in-between turn effects that take place after the last completed turn, if necessary, until one player has fewer prize cards remaining than the other. The player with the fewest prize cards left is considered the winner of the match and the match ends."
 
Rainbowgym said:
We are discussing it on the professor boards.

I can tell you I don't like this chance.
I had to run a BR (last one on oct 30) under this new rule and I didn't like how this rule turned out.
Since we use Best of 3 in Swiss I had enough examples of how much (in my view negative) impact this had.
Click to expand...
NoPoke said:
It is the most active topic in that particular section of the OP forums.
Click to expand...

Good to hear there's some discussion going on. I'm not a professor so I didn't know about it.

Ness said:
I'm glad you do. I am not being over dramatic when I say this is an absolute disaster.
Click to expand...

Haha, I wasn't trying to insult you, Jason! I was serious.

I really don't get why they'd change a rule to worsen it. As a player in general it saddens, as an SP user I love it.
 
Agrees with Ness on this topic. This rewards the less skilled players and encourages more donk decks to be played. I am more of a strategic player and rely less on a snipe for the bench for 80 Garchomp X to win Game 2 after I played close to an 1hr strategic game 1.

What is the reasoning behind this updated rule change?
 
The reasoning was probably P!P being like:
"Hey, BR's werent TOTALLY dominated by SP and in the next set is some more stuff that might be annoying to SP's success. How do we screw over non-SP players over as good as we can"

And thus, this new rule was born.
 
Sigh.

The reasoning is clear IMHO. Dialga-Palkia Legend. Without this change how do you accomidate a top cut where he is being played?

Player 1 "Judge, i've taken 4 prizes."
Judge "But you have 10 prizes."
Player 1 "Yeah, but I took 4."
Player 2 "No he only took 2."
Judge "...."

Keeping the "take 4 prizes" with DPL legal makes it so that both the players and the judge have to track something total external to the gamestate ... prizes taken ... when there really isn't a clear way to tell. There was either going to be a procedural workaround to track "prizes taken" or there was going to be achange like we got where whomever is ahead in prizes at the end of time "wins" that game.
 
OR they could just say "There must be only 2 prize cards or less left". Different wording, same meaning no?

Bsides if you let DPL add 10 prizes to your prizes...then you deserve to bloody loose.
 
vanderbilt_grad said:
Player 1 "Judge, i've taken 4 prizes."
Judge "But you have 10 prizes."
Player 1 "Yeah, but I took 4."
Player 2 "No he only took 2."
Judge "...."
Click to expand...

A good judge can easily reconstruct the situation by asking a few questions to both players to detect the potential liar, who would be DQ'd and reported to P!P. Not very convenient on the cheater's side.

I don't think that's the real reason.
 
vanderbilt_grad said:
Sigh.

The reasoning is clear IMHO. Dialga-Palkia Legend. Without this change how do you accomidate a top cut where he is being played?

Player 1 "Judge, i've taken 4 prizes."
Judge "But you have 10 prizes."
Player 1 "Yeah, but I took 4."
Player 2 "No he only took 2."
Judge "...."

Keeping the "take 4 prizes" with DPL legal makes it so that both the players and the judge have to track something total external to the gamestate ... prizes taken ... when there really isn't a clear way to tell. There was either going to be a procedural workaround to track "prizes taken" or there was going to be achange like we got where whomever is ahead in prizes at the end of time "wins" that game.
Click to expand...

This can easily be resolved by letting the prizes who are added with DPL be turned 90 degrees from the original 6 prizes.
So 6 prizes laid down as they used to be and whatever is added above of those but turned 90 degrees.
Very easy to track if the 4 prizes are taken, unless the player takes them from the added stack but that's a choice with the drawback you can loose on prizes if you do it that way.

Little kids will understand this, judges can easily see the gamestate.
Perhaps some masters will try to bend/abuse this rule, but we have judges for those rare occasions to step in and penalize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top