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

[Scipio]

If you can't play around this rule than that's your fault. After time is called there's still 3 turns to be taken, if you can't win in those 3 turns than maybe you should lose games 2 and 3. I think this comes down to player skill and deck building, I've got nothing against it. I'm not going to complain about a ruling just to make winning easier for me.

Player A pilots a Steelix Prime deck and is facing a Kingdra player, Player B. In Game 1, Player B takes a few prizes, but eventually Player A gets a fully charged Steelix Prime ready to go and smashes up Kingdras. One by one they fall and due to the insane amount of heal cards in the deck, Player B finds himself unable to break through the Steelix that is now making his life miserable. Player B checks the clock and sees theres about half an hour left once the Steelix starts smashing stuff. Rather then scooping then and there to go for a game 2 hoping to take 4 prize cards, he slows down, intending to finish this game fully. Once he notices 55 minutes are gone, he scoops.
Game 2 starts, and Player B again takes this quick advantage. After he's taken 2 prizes, time is called.
Game 3 is a formality as Steelix would have no way to take the first prize against Kingdra.

How EXACTLY would Player A have been able to, as you put it, "PLAY AROUND THIS RULE" ? It was Player B who had all the tools to manipulate the clock to his likings, Player A could play as fast as he want, Player B controls the clock. If done so by using a timely manner for all his actions, there is quite literally nothing Player A can do about it.

In the old ruling, should the Kingdra player find himself unable to breach through the Steelix, he'd scoop and go for a game 2, hoping to be able to take 4 prizes. Now, he'll try to make the game take as long as possible to deny the Steelix player any chance of a reasonable comeback. He has no pressure anymore.

 

[Yoshi-]

Exactly...
Ive basically lost all motivation to even test for cities because I know that IF Id loose thanks to this rule Id probably ragequit or something...

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

I see a lot of focus on the "intense game 1" ... but I've seen a lot more reports here on the gym that go like "I donked him game 1 and then played slowly enough that my opponent wasn't able to take 4 prizes game 2 so I won."

 

[Xicious]

I know all about Scramble Nrg, I created Blissey Absol to shut scramble down and then proceeded to wreck all the faces of Magmortar at regionals with Plox. I know all about scramble and how to beat it, that was never a problem.

To play around the rule it's quite simple, Player A takes their good ol' time with a deck that only has late game support and wins game 1. Player A who just won Game 1 decides to automatically concede Game 2, and Game 3 begins. Player A decides who goes first or second and has a decent length match to play. If your deck has no early game support why even bother with game 2, just go right to game 3 where you can decide who goes first and second, which is huge in my opinion. Not to mention a whole slew of staples that can win clutch situations under sudden death, the best example being Azelf LA's lock up attack.

The problem with the Steelix situation is just that, you're playing Steelix. A good balanced deck should have Early, Mid, and Late game support. By playing a deck like Steelix you're sacrificing your early game support and heading for mid-late game. A decision you made prior to this tournament starting, your list can be changed to help this and give you better early and mid game support. If you're thinking to yourself "Oh, I shouldn't have to change my deck just to have a better chance at winning under this rule!" I hate to tell you this but your deck isn't balanced and doesn't meet the curve.

 

[Scipio]

I know all about Scramble Nrg, I created Blissey Absol to shut scramble down and then proceeded to wreck all the faces of Magmortar at regionals with Plox. I know all about scramble and how to beat it, that was never a problem.

To play around the rule it's quite simple, Player A takes their good ol' time with a deck that only has late game support and wins game 1. Player A who just won Game 1 decides to automatically concede Game 2, and Game 3 begins. Player A decides who goes first or second and has a decent length match to play. If your deck has no early game support why even bother with game 2, just go right to game 3 where you can decide who goes first and second, which is huge in my opinion. Not to mention a whole slew of staples that can win clutch situations under sudden death, the best example being Azelf LA's lock up attack.

The problem with the Steelix situation is just that, you're playing Steelix. A good balanced deck should have Early, Mid, and Late game support. By playing a deck like Steelix you're sacrificing your early game support and heading for mid-late game. A decision you made prior to this tournament starting, your list can be changed to help this and give you better early and mid game support. If you're thinking to yourself "Oh, I shouldn't have to change my deck just to have a better chance at winning under this rule!" I hate to tell you this but your deck isn't balanced and doesn't meet the curve.

Uhm, no. Player B is the one who controls the clock and can decide to scoop at the worst time possible for Player A.
I just gave the example of Steelix because under previous tournament conditions, it WAS a relatively viable deck. Under the current circumstances, it isn't. Thats the whole point - this new rule makes several decks that much more powerful, while everything tanky/spreading isnt.
Again, THE LOSING PLAYER CONTROLS THE CLOCK and can decide how much time is needed for Game 2.

 

[NoPoke]

I see a lot of focus on the "intense game 1" ... but I've seen a lot more reports here on the gym that go like "I donked him game 1 and then played slowly enough that my opponent wasn't able to take 4 prizes game 2 so I won."

Assuming that pace was not a problem and I have my doubts as any report like that suggests that pace was deliberately slower than the moderate-lively required by the guidelines....

Anyway, I don't like donks but they are FULL WINS as far as the tcg is concerned. Players can expect to get donked. Even setup deck players know they will get donked. Under the four prize rule they also knew that they had to take a big number of prizes to make game two count in their favour, so this change is good for them?? I bet you expect me to argue that it is bad? Well I won't because it is fairly neutral to slightly advantages for the slow deck player under the circumstances of a game one donk. So I must be in favour of the change? Er no, because though fairly neutral in impact if game one is a donk it is appallingly bad if game one is not a donk. You should not cherry pick the scenario of a game one donk you should not ignore the common long game one. The long game one is the scenario where this rule has the greatest impact. One where I can't see any positives at all.

The rule is a disaster in best of three for the slow deck player. This rule makes 45 minute best of three unusable if the TO is concerned about crowning the best player on the day from all the attendees. A winner will be crowned, but will be selected from amongst the fast deck players. Set up decks need not apply

Do I expect widespread problems at USA Cities? No because it will take time for players to adapt. But by the time States come around slow decks will be an endangered species. Just why would any player select a slow deck when the best of three rules are so heavily weighted against them?

 

[Xicious]

Uhm, no. Player B is the one who controls the clock and can decide to scoop at the worst time possible for Player A.
I just gave the example of Steelix because under previous tournament conditions, it WAS a relatively viable deck. Under the current circumstances, it isn't. Thats the whole point - this new rule makes several decks that much more powerful, while everything tanky/spreading isnt.
Again, THE LOSING PLAYER CONTROLS THE CLOCK and can decide how much time is needed for Game 2.

You're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying to play around the rule the player who won Game 1 should skip playing game 2, make the match 1-1 and go directly to game 3. Since they scooped Game 2 before it even started they get to decide who goes first and second on game 3. Game 2 should never even be set up, you should look at your opponent tell them you want to go directly to game 3 it's perfectly legal puts you in a good position with plenty of time and an advantage.

 

[espeon200]

I didn't know that playing Theorymon could prove a rules change should be enacted. Honestly, I see the points that everyone is making, but I'd like to see actual numbers as making assumptions based off of what could happen is very rarely going to match up with what will happen.

Top players: Humor me, how many of your important matches were won thanks to the 50% rule? How many were called while you were behind on prizes but your opponent hadn't taken more than 50%?

I said this on the official Pokemon boards, but TPCi wouldn't have just made up this rule for the fun of it. There is probably some reasoning having to do with being able to see the outcome of every tournament played that led to the change being enacted. There are two other possibilities. 1. This is the first change in a major rulings overhaul and they're getting it out of the way now because it doesn't completely break the game state in the current rotation. 2. Pokemon Japan has mandated the change and there's not TPCi can do about it. Either way TPCi will probably be unable to tell us because they very rarely share internal information such as this.

Will someone lose a City Championship thanks to the new rules? Probably. There are so many of those that the law of averages makes it likely. Will it suck if it's you? Most definitely. Will it affect every City Championship that is run negatively? I severely doubt it.

 

[nnaann]

Player A pilots a Steelix Prime deck and is facing a Kingdra player, Player B. In Game 1, Player B takes a few prizes, but eventually Player A gets a fully charged Steelix Prime ready to go and smashes up Kingdras. One by one they fall and due to the insane amount of heal cards in the deck, Player B finds himself unable to break through the Steelix that is now making his life miserable. Player B checks the clock and sees theres about half an hour left once the Steelix starts smashing stuff. Rather then scooping then and there to go for a game 2 hoping to take 4 prize cards, he slows down, intending to finish this game fully. Once he notices 55 minutes are gone, he scoops.
Game 2 starts, and Player B again takes this quick advantage. After he's taken 2 prizes, time is called.
Game 3 is a formality as Steelix would have no way to take the first prize against Kingdra.

How EXACTLY would Player A have been able to, as you put it, "PLAY AROUND THIS RULE" ? It was Player B who had all the tools to manipulate the clock to his likings, Player A could play as fast as he want, Player B controls the clock. If done so by using a timely manner for all his actions, there is quite literally nothing Player A can do about it.

In the old ruling, should the Kingdra player find himself unable to breach through the Steelix, he'd scoop and go for a game 2, hoping to be able to take 4 prizes. Now, he'll try to make the game take as long as possible to deny the Steelix player any chance of a reasonable comeback. He has no pressure anymore.

This is a really great example to show why the rule needs to be changed back.

 

[Yoshi-]

You're missing what I'm saying. I'm saying to play around the rule the player who won Game 1 should skip playing game 2, make the match 1-1 and go directly to game 3. Since they scooped Game 2 before it even started they get to decide who goes first and second on game 3. Game 2 should never even be set up, you should look at your opponent tell them you want to go directly to game 3 it's perfectly legal puts you in a good position with plenty of time and an advantage.

Cause if time is running out and you play a deck that cant get the first price scooping game 2 will so help you... I know what you mean, with 2 equally fast decks this gives the player who won game 1 a better chance but otherwise ...

I didn't know that playing Theorymon could prove a rules change should be enacted. Honestly, I see the points that everyone is making, but I'd like to see actual numbers as making assumptions based off of what could happen is very rarely going to match up with what will happen.

The issue at hand is that, even if it doesnt happen to often due to "longer" topcuts or something, the rule is still there... If nothing like what many people described here happens were fine with both rules, if it happens a game of pokemon got ruined...

Top players: Humor me, how many of your important matches were won thanks to the 50% rule? How many were called while you were behind on prizes but your opponent hadn't taken more than 50%?

Why does that matter? Even if I win like this Im not happy because I dont deserve to win a game in this situation. The overall impact is bad, even if you may gain a personal advantage out of this. Cause thats basically just getting lucky

I said this on the official Pokemon boards, but TPCi wouldn't have just made up this rule for the fun of it. There is probably some reasoning having to do with being able to see the outcome of every tournament played that led to the change being enacted. There are two other possibilities. 1. This is the first change in a major rulings overhaul and they're getting it out of the way now because it doesn't completely break the game state in the current rotation. 2. Pokemon Japan has mandated the change and there's not TPCi can do about it. Either way TPCi will probably be unable to tell us because they very rarely share internal information such as this.

I doubt this rule is in place in japan and unless something really wired is happening I dont see this coming from japan.. And IMo the only reason is "it sounds easier and we didnt thoght it would matter much".

Will someone lose a City Championship thanks to the new rules? Probably. There are so many of those that the law of averages makes it likely. Will it suck if it's you? Most definitely. Will it affect every City Championship that is run negatively? I severely doubt it.

Lets make both players roll a dice at the beginning of each topcut game, if they throw a 20 they get a gameloss! Will someone lose a City Championship thanks to the new rules? Probably. There are so many of those that the law of averages makes it likely. Will it suck if it's you? Most definitely. Will it affect every City Championship that is run negatively? YES!!!!

See what I did there? Even if it doesnt happen that often, every time it happens a tournament becomes worthless, someone gets cheated out of a now illegal topcut, someone becomes "colleteral damage".

It doesnt matter what the reasons for this are, this rule is unacceptable and make this game hardly playable because the sheer fear of getting kicked out of a tournament because of this completly kills my motivation to even go there. Cause no matter how angry this makes me now, once Ive had this happening to me I doubt Id play on. Isnt donking and bad starts enough? Do we really need another "if it happens to you you cant do anything" roulette in this game? It will happen, it will cause bad blood and it doesnt have any benefits.

And tbh I think when we have Ruiner, Ness, Eric Nance & a million other people all saying the same thing, that this is absolutly ridiculus, I think that people who dont play that much should for once believe that those people who have a deeper understanding of this game mechanics / a ton of experience with different rules changes, are right.

 

[espeon200]

Cause if time is running out and you play a deck that cant get the first price scooping game 2 will so help you... I know what you mean, with 2 equally fast decks this gives the player who won game 1 a better chance but otherwise ...




Lets make both players roll a dice at the beginning of each topcut game, if they throw a 20 they get a gameloss! Will someone lose a City Championship thanks to the new rules? Probably. There are so many of those that the law of averages makes it likely. Will it suck if it's you? Most definitely. Will it affect every City Championship that is run negatively? YES!!!!

See what I did there? Even if it doesnt happen that often, every time it happens a tournament becomes worthless, someone gets cheated out of a now illegal topcut, someone becomes "colleteral damage".

It doesnt matter what the reasons for this are, this rule is unacceptable and make this game hardly playable because the sheer fear of getting kicked out of a tournament because of this completly kills my motivation to even go there. Cause no matter how angry this makes me now, once Ive had this happening to me I doubt Id play on. Isnt donking and bad starts enough? Do we really need another "if it happens to you you cant do anything" roulette in this game? It will happen, it will cause bad blood and it doesnt have any benefits.

And tbh I think when we have Ruiner, Ness, Eric Nance & a million other people all saying the same thing, that this is absolutly ridiculus, I think that people who dont play that much should for once believe that those people who have a deeper understanding of this game mechanics / a ton of experience with different rules changes, are right.

Thank you for completely failing to answer my biggest question, the only one that has any possibility of changing my mind in this discussion.

BTW, you just agreed that it wouldn't happen at every City Championships and yet because it will happen at a few it ruins all of them. I'm sorry, but your logic does not compute with me. Give me solid evidence. Point to a majority of events where this does happen and then I'll agree whole-heartedly with you and join the TCPi IS TEH STUPIDZ!!1! bandwagon. Don't try and sway me with a fear-mongering approach that fails to answer my rational response.

FYI: "Change it our I quit" doesn't work as an argument when a game is as big as Pokémon unless you get everyone who plays to say it with you.

Now go ahead and point out how I'm wrong and everything that I say is wrong. I'm still waiting for valid responses to my question.

 

[Yoshi-]

Thank you for completely failing to answer my biggest question, the only one that has any possibility of changing my mind in this discussion.

BTW, you just agreed that it wouldn't happen at every City Championships and yet because it will happen at a few it ruins all of them. I'm sorry, but your logic does not compute with me. Give me solid evidence. Point to a majority of events where this does happen and then I'll agree whole-heartedly with you and join the TCPi IS TEH STUPIDZ!!1! bandwagon. Don't try and sway me with a fear-mongering approach that fails to answer my rational response.

THere is no evidence since it hasent happen. Look at my great idea with the dice. Weve never tried it so how can anyone assume it isnt a good idea? Because thats basic logic... I dont need to try to find out that shooting myself in the foot is a pretty dumb idea.


FYI: "Change it our I quit" doesn't work as an argument when a game is as big as Pokémon unless you get everyone who plays to say it with you.

All I was saying that I think this makes the game unplayable and not worth playing anymore. Not threatening anyone, just stating my opinion. The game has been going downhil for a long time IMO and I can seen the impact of this in my area. Believe it or not, a father from my league (who started playing around 2008?) basically told me he doesnt bother with this game anymore right now since hes sick of playing games that last 2/3 turns and sick of sp. He hasnt quit but interest is fading and this is something ive seen on varoius people. So yes, stuff like that turns people off...

Now go ahead and point out how I'm wrong and everything that I say is wrong. I'm still waiting for valid responses to my question.

The pure fear of this stupid ruling ruining my day is capable of killing my motivation so in the end this does affect every cc. Seriously, the old forum stil lis available and I will happily send you the entire thread if you want to, ive posted sides of explanations why this rule is bogus.

I have no idea how often this WILL happen since I dont know how much time well have for cc topcuts. Maybe this will hardly happen but it will rule someones day somewhere. And what for? This ruling has no benefit at all and completly messes up the entire gameplay. Heck even if it doenst happen at all this ruling makes no sence.

If the situation doesnt happen it doesnt matter
If it happens the old ruling makes a ton of sence.

So what is the benefit of this?


"Will someone lose a City Championship thanks to the new rules? Probably. There are so many of those that the law of averages makes it likely. Will it suck if it's you? Most definitely. Will it affect every City Championship that is run negatively? No"

Even then, someone somewhere lost in an unfair way. How can you just ignore this? Or have we finally reached the point where we ignore someone being kicked out in an unfair way because we just can?
Maybe it doesnt happen to often but does that change the fact that this makes no sence to begin with?

We can hope that no one will step on that landmine or we can just remove it. I know what my choice would be.

e:/ And if you want to call it a bandwagon when basically everyone who knows a lot about this games gameplay realizes a change is stupid that I honestly cant help you.

 

[Magnechu]

It's not so much that the rule will affect the actual top cut games, it's the fact that it literally makes some decks unplayable. Any competitive player simply cannot play a deck that doesn't play extremely fast, because they will lose to this rule change.

 

[The_Lurb]

This really sucks. And that's coming from someone who still loves sp. The ruling makes it so ONLY sp decks are viable essentially which is unacceptable. There is zero reason for this rule, no positive side, etc. The reasons against this rule are pointed out accurately many times within this thread. Hopefully this gets changed before cc's start or there are going to be a whole lot of sour grapes. Yugioh is going to have a more diverse metagame then we do.

 

[Barkjon]

This really sucks. And that's coming from someone who still loves sp. The ruling makes it so ONLY sp decks are viable essentially which is unacceptable. There is zero reason for this rule, no positive side, etc. The reasons against this rule are pointed out accurately many times within this thread. Hopefully this gets changed before cc's start or there are going to be a whole lot of sour grapes. Yugioh is going to have a more diverse metagame then we do.

Exactly.

Oh crud, now it's gonna be like GG was way back when...

Thanks P!P, now you've destroyed non-donking, non-SP decks.

 

[NoPoke]

I didn't know that playing Theorymon could prove a rules change should be enacted. Honestly, I see the points that everyone is making, but I'd like to see actual numbers as making assumptions based off of what could happen is very rarely going to match up with what will happen.

so if you discount theorymon against the rule change you have to discount theorymon for it as well.

Top players: Humor me, how many of your important matches were won thanks to the 50% rule? How many were called while you were behind on prizes but your opponent hadn't taken more than 50%?

I'm not a top player but I don't think the question is relevant. You are bound to have a distribution of outcomes. The issue is the impact the rule change has on the metagame. Something that players do try to predict. Players do play theorymon with the metagame.

I said this on the official Pokemon boards, but TPCi wouldn't have just made up this rule for the fun of it. There is probably some reasoning having to do with being able to see the outcome of every tournament played that led to the change being enacted. Actually P!P can't see much more than any other TO. TOM does not gather game outcomes in the matchplay and even the time of entry of the result slip is unreliable as many slips will be entered at the same time rather than the instant that the result is known.

There are two other possibilities. 1. This is the first change in a major rulings overhaul and they're getting it out of the way now because it doesn't completely break the game state in the current rotation. That makes no sense: a drip drip drip of continual change is much more likely to upset everyone as well as increasing the chance that bits will be missed.

2. Pokemon Japan has mandated the change and there's not TPCi can do about it. Either way TPCi will probably be unable to tell us because they very rarely share internal information such as this. I doubt that is it. If Japan were going to mandate a change surely it would be towards there current tournament structure and not interfering with ours?

Will someone lose a City Championship thanks to the new rules? Probably. There are so many of those that the law of averages makes it likely. Will it suck if it's you? Most definitely. Will it affect every City Championship that is run negatively? I severely doubt it.

Actually this will have an impact on every best of three match because the top players will anticipate how this change will affect their decks.

responses in red.

I can predict what will happen if I jump off a tall building. I don't need to try it just to make sure its not incorrect theorymon.

The loosing player controls the clock when they are behind. With this change there is zero incentive for the fast deck to scoop and every incentive to waste as much of the round when playing a game one that they know they will lose. Why?, because of the advantage that a fast deck has in the early minutes of a game. Lose slowly in game one, get ahead in game two and be awarded the win for game two even though you may have taken just one prize then clean up in the sudden death.

 

[baby mario]

I love SP decks.

I normally support the way the game is now and hate the stupid whining about everything on Pokegym

BUT . . .

I really don't like this rule change. I don't see anything wrong with the way things were before, and I can't think of any flaws in the game that this will fix. PDL? Seriously? Make games 2 & 3 a sudden death-style scramble for the first Prize just to accomodate this one unplayed and unplayable card? That's ridiculous.

Maybe I'm missing something: can anyone think of a legit reason why this rule change is good for the game? Is there something that was unfair previously that this fixes?

 

[Scipio]

My guess is that it "fixes" people who win game 1 and outstall the opponent in game 2...which could already be solved by the losing party scooping in game 1...

 

[espeon200]

I'm not a top player but I don't think the question is relevant. You are bound to have a distribution of outcomes. The issue is the impact the rule change has on the metagame. Something that players do try to predict. Players do play theorymon with the metagame.

You've been a TO for a long time under various rule sets. In your tenure as a TO and PTO how many games have you seen that utilized the 50% rule? Everyone is complaining about how much this changes the game, but when I ask for concrete examples of when this ruling would have ruined games in the past if it had been in effect I get nothing. Would you say that in the majority of your battle roads games (which were Bo3 all the way through instead of just top cut) were affected by the old rule and would have ended differently with the new one? Would you say half were? I'd even be swayed if you said that 30 percent of those matches played were affected. You know if you jump off a building that you'll fall to the ground, but if you're never given the chance to stand on top of the building, it doesn't really matter.

If this becomes a big issue when the rules are actually being utilized and enough players complain about it after Cities, then I'd be willing to bet that TPCi will change the rule back before States. Ordering them to change it back when there have been virtually no tournaments played under the new ruling won't change anything. It'd be like ordering the chef to take back a soup you ordered because you didn't like how thin it looked. Maybe it's the most delicious soup in the world, but if you send it back without at least tasting it, you'll never know.

But whatever, I can see that no matter how much I argue this it's not going to change any minds. So I'll do what the rest of us will have to do anyway and sit back to watch the outcome.

ETA: It's not the rule that affects the format, it is the players' responses to the rule. If people hadn't freaked out about the stock market crash in the 1920s and pulled all their money out of the banks then we probably wouldn't have had the Great Depression. But seriusly, that is the end of my trolling this topic.

 

[The_Lurb]

You don't seem to understand how the rule sways the entire format. Although not a professor I have seen and played in my share of top cuts where this rule would've drastically affected games as well. Cities are a big deal for many of us going after invites and if people don't conform to this rule (play sp) they will be beaten by it (playing pretty much anything but sp). It's just no fun to have a format consisting of one type of deck even if you like that deck imo. To say it won't make any difference is really quite sad. Sure I guess if all the sp get beaten out of top cut (never gonna happen) it wouldn't matter. If you're just playing devil's advocate please stop. It doesn't help anyone and numerous top players and professors have explained why this is a poor rule change both in this thread and the old one.