Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

New Tournament rules documents have been posted

Status
Not open for further replies.
Would you prefer the Prize rules in place last year? Let's say, something like this...

In Single-Game Matches, when Time+3 has expired, check the Prize Count. The Winner is the person with the fewest prizes remaining. If the Prize count is tied, then the Match result is a Tie.

In Best-Of-3, break it down like this...
1) If Time expires during Game 1 or 3, check the Prize Count. The Winner is the person with the fewest prizes remaining. If the Prize count is tied, then the Match result is a Tie.
2) If Time expires during Game 2, check the Prize count. If neither player has taken more than 50% of his or her Prize cards, then Game 2 does not count and the result of Game 1 is the result of the Match. If one player has taking more than 50% of his or her Prize cards, then the winner of Game 2 is the person with the fewest Prizes remaining. If this results in the Game count being 1-1, then the Match is a Tie.

How would that kind of structure work for you, Kyle?
 
Yes, Wins are worth 3 points.

I was saying once time is called under the new rules, +3 does not matter.

I don't understand why you say this? Section 8.1 in the new rules states +3 still exist. It needs to exist so that players aren't playing the clock....no matter what they do, when time is called, a few more turns take place.

It does not matter id I had 0 cards in deck or my active would die between turns because once time is called, the game just ends. All that matters is prize count once the game ends and if I'm winning by prize count, game 2 should be awarded to me and not thrown out of the window because my opponent won game 1. Nothing else matters after time being called other then prize count unless there is a new rule I'm not aware of.

Let's me more precise. Once time is called, and after +3, gameplay stops; it's technically not over. There are several win conditions to the game, and any one is not more important than another: the opponent is unable to draw a card when they must, you take all of your prizes, the opponent has no remaining pokemon, or they have six pokemon in the Lost Zone. For instance, if one player takes their sixth prize, but gets their last pokemon knocked out by recoil damage, each player has one win condition and they proceed with a Sudden Death game.

Prior to this year, every match needed to have a winner, so rules were written so that indeed prizes were used to determine a winner of a game that ran out of time. Those rules aren't as needed anymore because ties are now possible. You are correct that this year, they could have preserved those rules to apply in Swiss Best of 3 with ties, but they have chosen not to. These new rules are just another way to play it. There is no right way or wrong way, especially since this isn't even meant to be a true "best of 3" like Single Elimination still is.
 
We're shifting away from Pokémon and towards clock manipulation. I'm certainly not happy with that.

This exactly. And this problem is going to happen far far more often than donks, which seem to be the only justification for this new system.


Bullados, I would very much like that change you suggested. That is probably the best 'minimal adjustment' that would make this new system reasonable. Other solutions would be as Kyle said, just have best of 1 30, or increase beyond 50 minutes. (Honestly though 60 will still have many of these problems, but including partial games would help)

Carlos, there are definitely better systems than this. Whether ties are more representative than wins is a subjective choice. This system makes time manipulation a huge asset, which is awful. There is no way ties are worth this change. Bullados' suggestion can preserve ties if we need them and have a system based on Pokemon, not time manipulation.
 
Hi, thanks for contributing your information. I do wish to point out that it is imperfect input, because players will play differently knowing they are untimed versus having a time limit. Make sense? When pressed for time, players will make different strategic decisions, even mistakes.

I can't answer your question yet, because without factoring in time, we can't know how many of those would not have even finished game 2 to necessitate a game 3. Do you have any insight into how many were still in Game 2 at the 50 minute mark?

Of course a direct comparison can't be made, and I did not tract the length of the games. What the stat does show is that a majority of games will go to game three, and it'll be safe to assume that these games (that would have gone to game 3) will now either end in a tie or would have one of the players playing to run out the clock.
 
You bring up some good reasons for implementing this system, but I think the biggest problem is a very simple one. Under this system, I honestly would expect over half of the matches each round to go to time. In those situations, instead of the gameplay itself deciding a winner (or lack thereof), the time limit does. For both experienced and new players alike, the desire is for the game to be decided by what happens at the table, not by the clock.

Again, if we recall the intention that this Swiss version of Best of 3 is to play at least one full game, the gameplay did indeed show that a deserving player won Game 1. Players insisting for more time are glossing over that fact, and lamenting that the other player doesn't have enough time to make a comeback.



If I won the first game (no matter how long it took), it's my not my goal to win the second game; it's to make sure it doesn't finish.

That's strange to hear you say that; both would win you the match. Are you saying it's preferable to play slowly, instead of trying to win the match 2-0?

If a player wins Game 1 in 5 minutes, I find it hard to believe they can successfully stretch out Game 2 to not finish.
If a player wins Game 1 in 30 minutes, they deserve to win the Match. Running out of time in Game 2 should be understandable to both players.

So this is one potential source of discontent...that the clock won't allow for comebacks.

If I'm about to lose the third game, I'm trying to draw it out so I get a tie instead of a loss.

I suppose this is the bigger source of discontent: that someone who was ahead on prizes in Game 3 doesn't get to win the match. But let's face it, you won a game and your opponent won a game. Isn't that at least SOMEWHAT fair?

The net result is that a tie may be forced upon someone who could have won under different rules. It will be difficult to control your match record when a few different variables may throw you into a tie. The players who currently would advance to Day 2 are 9-0-0, 8-1-0, 8-0-1, 7-2-0, 7-1-1, 7-0-2, or 6-0-3. Those represent 21 points. The new "bubble" will be players with a 6-1-2 record. That could be fixed by making the bar 20 points, but maybe that lets too many players in?


If you go with Bullados' suggestions, you guys are valuing prize count above all. Mill decks suffer. Decks that take time to set up and lock and make a comeback suffer. We know certain decks aren't good candidates in Best of 3 Single Elimination, but Bullados' suggestion would also render them bad choices for Swiss.
 
I must admit, this topic has my head imploding. And I think it is because of the bi-polar Bo3. So in Swiss, we are saying prize count is meaningless. Its all about achieving that "one good game". Only "win conditions" matter. Ignore that 2nd-game 4-prize cards must be taken stuff. Then.... magically... when we are transported to TopCut Bo3, well golly jeepers prize count DOES matter. Taking 4-prize cards in game 2 DOES matter. I'm very happy to give this all a shot but I do see this being very confusing especially to young or new players.

Carlos, I am also getting a bit lost on the "perhaps" aspect you are tossing in about prize count. I may as well toss in a "perhaps not". :wink:

That said, I understand the changes and the rationale. Just struggling with the unintended consequences.
 
Last edited:
Again, if we recall the intention that this Swiss version of Best of 3 is to play at least one full game, the gameplay did indeed show that a deserving player won Game 1. Players insisting for more time are glossing over that fact, and lamenting that the other player doesn't have enough time to make a comeback.

If that's the case, then I'm saying that the system is misguided, and a different one should be in place. If you want the player who wins the first game to win, just make it a single game. Instead of using a system where there will be tons of draws and incomplete matches, just play more single game Swiss rounds to reduce the impact of quick wins.


That's strange to hear you say that; both would win you the match. Are you saying it's preferable to play slowly, instead of trying to win the match 2-0?

As a player, I'm going to take whatever path to victory that gives me the best odds. If I feel like my best chance is to try to win, I'll do that. If I'm sure I can burn the clock without losing the game, I'll go that route. The fact that this is a legitimate option is upsetting.

I suppose this is the bigger source of discontent: that someone who was ahead on prizes in Game 3 doesn't get to win the match. But let's face it, you won a game and your opponent won a game. Isn't that at least SOMEWHAT fair?

I don't think it's fair because you're punishing both players by not giving them enough time. A tie (1 point) is terrible compared to a win (3 points); it's almost as bad as a loss. On some level, it is "fair" because nobody loses. But from a numbers standpoint, winning is way more important than not losing. I wouldn't mind seeing the four prize rule implemented in these series to help the problem, but that doesn't fix it either. At the very least, this does keep things consistent with the way matches operate in top cut scenarios.

Again, stick with one game or give enough time for three. I don't think this "middle ground" is a good idea.
 
There were several other forms this change might have taken, but this is the hand we're being dealt, as it were. In the world at large, ties are not cool (see various proverbs & cliches about ties). Ties/Intentional Draws were removed from Pokémon in order to "let the result be decided at the table". Now, the value is in decreasing Top Cut rounds and avoiding 'bad luck' games, and than implies ties. Values change in life, so here we are with 20 minute longer matches and ties are back.

In the new values round turn time has also been targeted. Round turn time is the time it takes from when time is called previous round until go is called on next round. With no extended matches, perfect turn times at a large event go from 45 to 65 minutes per round. Things are rarely perfect, but assuming they are, this means a 9am player meeting gets me to 8 rounds at 7:30pm or 9 rounds at 8:30pm, with minimal meal breaks.

The thing in all this that hasn't been overlooked by OP is pace of play. It not only impacts fairness in multi-game matches, but round turn time. We've been told by OP that slow play penalties are to escalate faster and the top penalty is a prize card. What this means is that if you're a thinker who regularly exceeds OPs pace guidelines, you need to practice to speed up your game. You can expect one warning penalty before the next infraction becomes a prize penalty. In swiss this means a penalty after a pattern of exceeding the OP guidelines. In +3 penalty is going to be after significantly exceeding a single guideline. See the FAQ for my regional or the OP penalty guidelines.
 
Yeah, Best of 3 is bi-polar. It's productive talking this through with anyone willing because I do hope it becomes easier to explain the more we try.

I'm really trying to appreciate the rules the way they are written. You can have ties in Swiss, but you cannot have ties in top cut Single Elimination. That's why the rules are different. That's the best way to explain it to young kids IMO so far. Is it a Swiss match? Only games with a winner count. (This statement applies equally to Best of 1 of Best of 3). Is it a Single Elimination match? Play on until there is a winner, unless it is too early in Game 2.

I also want to see how things play out at Regionals, but I'm of the impression that if we were to try to apply the Game 2 4-prize rule to Swiss, we'd still get just as many ties, just for different scenarios, right?. Like, what if the loser of Game 1 was ahead in prizes Game 2 when time was called? Match ends in a Tie. I would think this would be more hated than just letting the winner of Game 1 win the Match.

(On that note, I'm going to bed. If anyone would care to illustrate how declaring a winner of Game 2 based on who was ahead on prizes would yield noticeably fewer ties, I'd be much obliged to learn why in the morning.)

UPDATE: Pooka, I see in your latest post that you did offer that Game 2 4-prize doesn't help the situation much. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I would rather see the 4-prize rule for game 2. 4 prizes is a significant portion of a game and that shouldn't be meaningless. If it meaningless, give us best of 1. I'm not sure if a 4 prize rule decreases ties, a 1 or 4-prize rule in game 3 would certainly do that though. However, more important than ties or no ties is that a 4-prize rule in game 2 and a 1 or 4 prize rule in game 3 would greatly reduce the incentive to stall. That is a much more important issue every round than a philosophical choice of whether ties are better or worse than only wins and losses.
 
I would rather see the 4-prize rule for game 2. 4 prizes is a significant portion of a game and that shouldn't be meaningless. If it meaningless, give us best of 1. I'm not sure if a 4 prize rule decreases ties, a 1 or 4-prize rule in game 3 would certainly do that though. However, more important than ties or no ties is that a 4-prize rule in game 2 and a 1 or 4 prize rule in game 3 would greatly reduce the incentive to stall. That is a much more important issue every round than a philosophical choice of whether ties are better or worse than only wins and losses.

A much better idea is just to give the person who has the prize lead the win in game 2, even if its by 1 prize card when time is called. Slow play will be a issue for sure and this will prevent it.
 
Acceptable to whom? As long as the list of Top 32 (or X-2 equiv) can be determined at the end of Day 1, and the Top end on Day 2, if I were the Tournament Organizer I wouldn't care.

TCPI. They obviously had some sort of data that they used to create the time frame and rules. I imagine this included mock tournaments and PTO time frames. My thought is that they know that there will be a certain percentage of matches that will end up tying, and they're ok with that percentage or they wouldn't have green lighted the tournament structure. I'm just curious what this percentage is. If they ran through scenarios and determined that 90% of matches ended in a tie I doubt they would use that structure, but I also don't think they ran the current structure and came up with a percentage like 10% either, I think it's somewhere between.
 
TCPI. They obviously had some sort of data that they used to create the time frame and rules. I imagine this included mock tournaments and PTO time frames. My thought is that they know that there will be a certain percentage of matches that will end up tying, and they're ok with that percentage or they wouldn't have green lighted the tournament structure. I'm just curious what this percentage is. If they ran through scenarios and determined that 90% of matches ended in a tie I doubt they would use that structure, but I also don't think they ran the current structure and came up with a percentage like 10% either, I think it's somewhere between.

What about this season makes you think that they are following some master plan, so many radical changes in one year are you certain that all of it has been so completely worked out? Swiss rounds will be based on attendance and as that should drop I would guess most events will have 5 or 6 swiss rounds for masters. Basically if you get 2 losses and or ties you are out of the top cut. And the final round the X-0s will scoop to eachother so that they both get in, so only 6 players at large will get in with a loss or tie prior to the final round of swiss
 
We've covered the merits and faults of the new system. Let's try something new and review how we got here.

There is no way ties are worth this change......That is a much more important issue every round than a philosophical choice of whether ties are better or worse than only wins and losses.

I noticed those two quotes from two different posts. Are you thinking someone at TPCi said, "hey, lets bring back draws!" ? I don't think that's what they led with.

Here is what I believe the thought process could have been for all of the changes:

Changes regarding schedule of Premier events

  1. TPCi wanted to reduce Top Cut (Top 8 at most across the board) due to time issues. This is how other larger card games do it.
  2. That results in fewer games played by the winning players in a given day, and certainly a harder line cutoff line to draw for top cut.
  3. A solution is to move to Best of 3 in Swiss. This also gives the opportunity to recover from donks.
  4. There is now a lot of time left for the two-day events, so they added more Swiss rounds, and a smart cutoff for who advances to the next day.
  5. But Best of 3 play with a proper amount of time can still run long waiting for someone to take next prize and determine a winner, or even just starting Game 3. This would be too much of a risk to the Swiss schedule, so they added ties and match point calculations. This is how other larger card games do it.

Changes regarding Championship Points

  1. The cutoff for an invitation to Hawaii was Top 40. TPCi got hard data about how many players acquired a certain number of points.
  2. TPCi magnified the point values, and chose 400 CP as the threshold, knowing that it would allow for nearly twice as many players to qualify, since they wanted to have a bigger Words to fill the Vancouver venue.
  3. This year they are going back to where it could have been before, even the upper limit (500 CP) so players have to reach for it. They adjusted payouts and best finish limits.

Changes regarding organization of Premier events

  1. Regionals can be scheduled on more than just 3 dates, so players can theoretically attend more events now.
  2. The two seasons of Battle Roads are replaced with the eight seasons of League Challenges, so players can theoretically attend more events now.
  3. Masters will pay admission to most events now, increasing prizes while theoretically decreasing attendance.

Changes to the game from Japan

  1. Player going first cannot attack, to reduce the advantage of going first.
  2. Catcher requires a coin flip, to reduce the aggressiveness of decks.


That is a lot of changes as a whole, especially for the most competitive players to adapt to. I'm personally wondering when is the earliest TPCi would have learned of the rules changes coming from Japan. Had they known the games were going to be less aggressive, would they have had as much incentive to move to Best of 3 play?

If they stuck with Best of 1, as some of you are suggesting, and still implemented a small cut like they really wanted to, if your Masters division has under 227 attendees (which covers Cities, States, and small Regionals), you would have had a flat 8 games to determine who makes Top 8. What would the complaints of that be?
 
Last edited:


If they stuck with Best of 1, as some of you are suggesting, and still implemented a small cut like they really wanted to, if your Masters division has under 227 attendees (which covers Cities, States, and small Regionals), you would have had a flat 8 games to determine who makes Top 8. What would the complaints of that be?

The new documents would have 8 rounds of 50 minutes in this situation. It may in reality be that you get 8 flat games to determine who makes top 8 since game 2s often won't count. I am complaining.

If they went back to best of 1 30 minutes (let's say they include ties to keep time short), that subtracts 160 minutes of tournament play. That means they could fit in 4-5 extra single game rounds, and we play 12-13 rounds to determine who makes top 8. That sounds much better to me, and far fewer stalling incentives every round of that long day.
 
Last edited:
A much better idea is just to give the person who has the prize lead the win in game 2, even if its by 1 prize card when time is called. Slow play will be a issue for sure and this will prevent it.

No, the idea that a player could then win a long Game 1 and then be forced to draw on a game that his opponent takes one prize in is ridiculous.

Having to finish a complete game may be a bit harsh, and 4 prizes is a decent middle ground, but anything below 4 prizes is silly.
 
No, the idea that a player could then win a long Game 1 and then be forced to draw on a game that his opponent takes one prize in is ridiculous.

Having to finish a complete game may be a bit harsh, and 4 prizes is a decent middle ground, but anything below 4 prizes is silly.

That's the point. The series ends in a draw. Its no different if the players never got through game 1 and only 1 prize was taken. Its highly unlikely that will happen but if a player is winning a game, that player should be awarded that game, even if its by 1 prize because at the end of time, prize cards taken is the only thing that matters. If they are going to have a broken system, they should have some part of it that works.
 
That's the point. The series ends in a draw. Its no different if the players never got through game 1 and only 1 prize was taken. Its highly unlikely that will happen but if a player is winning a game, that player should be awarded that game, even if its by 1 prize because at the end of time, prize cards taken is the only thing that matters. If they are going to have a broken system, they should have some part of it that works.

I'm playing Darkrai and you're playing Blastoise. You win a hard fought game one 6-5 in 46 minutes. We start game two, you mulligan a few times, time gets called immediately after I draw the card to start off the first turn of the game. You start Keldeo up Squirtle down, I start lone Darkrai. My first turn, I attach and pass. Your only turn of the game (turn 2 of 3), you attach a Water to Keldeo, play a Beach, use it. My second turn (turn 3 of 3), I drop a Sableye, retreat for it, attach a Darkness to Darkrai, dump a Darkness with a CPU Search I use to get a Dark Patch, patch the Darkrai, Switch to the Darkrai, Catcher your Squirtle, and kill it. I win game two 1-0 in 5, maybe 6 minutes, the match ends in a draw.

Can you honestly tell me that you would be perfectly content with taking a draw for the round?
 
I'm playing Darkrai and you're playing Blastoise. You win a hard fought game one 6-5 in 46 minutes. We start game two, you mulligan a few times, time gets called immediately after I draw the card to start off the first turn of the game. You start Keldeo up Squirtle down, I start lone Darkrai. My first turn, I attach and pass. Your only turn of the game (turn 2 of 3), you attach a Water to Keldeo, play a Beach, use it. My second turn (turn 3 of 3), I drop a Sableye, retreat for it, attach a Darkness to Darkrai, dump a Darkness with a CPU Search I use to get a Dark Patch, patch the Darkrai, Switch to the Darkrai, Catcher your Squirtle, and kill it. I win game two 1-0 in 5, maybe 6 minutes, the match ends in a draw.

Can you honestly tell me that you would be perfectly content with taking a draw for the round?

Yes, thats perfectly fine because by the end of the game, you were winning by prize cards. Its really silly to expect an opponent an opponent to take 4 prize cards to get a win, under current rules. Sure it would suck to have it end in a draw like that but I rather it draw then saying the second game does not count at all when there are only a few minutes on the clock.
 
In the rulebook, prize cards are not the only win condition. In fact it's not even a "primary" win condition that makes it any more important than the others.

Vaporeon, I'd respectfully 100% disagree with you, because while you may have taken the first prize, perhaps you invested all your resources into that one Pokemon and don't have anything else on the board, and I could knock you out on the next turn and win the whole game without taking six prizes.

The only reason players favor "ahead in prizes" right now is because the rules for the previous format said so as a procedure for determining a winner. Now that we have ties, that is no longer imperative except for Best of 3 Single Elimination. The rules for Swiss this year are written to be different, and that is the new reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top