New Tournament rules documents have been posted

[vaporeon]

I know that but it does not make them fair. While the rulebook says there are more then one way to win but the truth of it is once time is call, the remaining prizes are the only way to decide a winner. The game does not check to see if there are any cards remaining in the deck, or if your playing Durant or other mill decks or in between turn effect because it does not make it that far. The winner of that game should be given the win if they lead by prize cards once time is called.

We cant do anything about it but giving a player a win if the won game 1 and to just throw out game 2 is bad for the game. I can play with bad rules but this is almost unplayable competitively. Winning the first game is so important now. The player that won game 1 has no real reason to play faster then he needs of if someone is winning game 1 and keeps the lead, they can legally slow play that game and make sure game 2 never finishes.

 

[losjackal]

While the rulebook says there are more then one way to win but the truth of it is once time is call, the remaining prizes are the only way to decide a winner.

I can't figure out if you are expressing your preference, or if you're stating what you believe are facts or rules of the game. So let me ask plainly: why do you say it's the only way, and why must a winner be decided?

 

[PokePop]

Reviewing the new documents myself. I'll be posting comments on things I've noticed as I go along.
First note: Has anyone else noticed that they have removed the restriction on players in a tournament watching other matches within their division?
I expect that is related to matches be streamed/displayed.

 

[PokePop]

The number of rounds you need to play in a PR to get your bonus prizes is determined by the TO:

The minimum number of rounds that a player must participate in for a Limited tournament is determined by the Tournament Organizer. If the player drops prior to that, that player may be denied any participation prizes he or she would have received had that player continued to play in the event.

 

[vaporeon]

I can't figure out if you are expressing your preference, or if you're stating what you believe are facts or rules of the game. So let me ask plainly: why do you say it's the only way, and why must a winner be decided?

When time is called, Pokemon does not count cards remaining in the deck to decide a winner if you are playing a mill deck. You may be winning the game during the timed match if you're playing mill but once time is called and + 3 is done, the player who took the most prize cards will win. Since the mill decks don't take prizes, they loose. The game looks at remaining prize cards to decide a winner at the end of time or the game if no other win condition was reached. the same is true with in between turns since it never makes it there.

I also feel a player must be decided for each game so the match means something. If I win game one, which took 47 minutes to win and my opponent took a prize or 2 on me the second game, he or she should be awarded the match because they were winning, per the games core rules. Saying that game 2 does not matter would be a slap in that players face once time is called. They should be given the win because they were winning, game state wise and it should end in a draw. With that rule system, there is no real reason to start a game 2 if 30 or more minutes were used for the first game. With game 1 being so important, the opponents player should be given some advantage if they were winning game 2 because they don't have any options if they lost game 1.

 

[FirestormXVI]

Pretty sure the bigger slap in the face is losing a game because you had 3 minutes to play and your opponent took a prize before you on Turn 1.

 

[PokePop]

A lot of players are not aware of this rule:

Arrange damage counters primarily over the picture of a card so as not to obstruct the view of the card text.

 

[PokePop]

I'll just post this here:

Any action that places cards in a specific order or reveals the position of any specific card within the deck immediately negates any previous randomization. Players engaging in these or other questionable shuffling methods may be subject to the Unsporting Conduct section of the Penalty Guidelines. Players are strongly encouraged to shuffle their opponents’ decks at Premier Events.

 

[PokePop]

Determining the winner of a match:

1. Swiss Rounds: In a nutshell, only complete games count as a win.
Game 1 complete? The winner of Game 1 wins.
Game 3 complete? The winner of Game 3 wins.
EVERYTHING ELSE is a tie.

2. Eliminations rounds: Same rules as last year.

 

[Mystery Thing]

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.

Well that's just difference of opinion between us then, I guess. I would absolutely, 100% feel like I got screwed if a full-blown, down-to-the-wire game was weighted the same as a (non-donk) game that lasted 3 turns and never even really got going.

 

[losjackal]

(I hate extensive quoting and debating point-by-point, because a forum like this is better for discussing higher level issues. But we are going to run into players who are thinking along the same lines as you, so I'm just using your words as representative of this particular viewpoint. In other words, please don't take this personally, you're helping expose and clarify issues that might be confusing to the whole playerbase.)

When time is called, Pokemon does not count cards remaining in the deck to decide a winner if you are playing a mill deck. You may be winning the game during the timed match if you're playing mill but once time is called and + 3 is done, the player who took the most prize cards will win. Since the mill decks don't take prizes, they loose.

And let's point out that when Durant was a popular deck, those players did not like this fact. That means there might be the opportunity to handle it better to be more fair all around. This rule also punishes the decks that strategically sacrifice a few prizes when setting up, but then set up a disruption lock and make a comeback.

I also feel a player must be decided for each game so the match means something. If I win game one, which took 47 minutes to win and my opponent took a prize or 2 on me the second game, he or she should be awarded the match because they were winning, per the games core rules.

This is where I fear you are mistaken. If we define the "games core rules" as the TCG Rulebook, only a win condition determines a winner.

You are referring to the 2012-2013 Play! Pokemon TCG Tournament Rules. Specifically, section 8.2 paragraph (2):

(2) If both players were on time to the match and were not away from the match for any period of time, the judge determines the winner based on the number of Prize cards that each player has remaining. The player with the fewest Prize cards remaining wins the match.

Whereas in the tournament rules for this 2013-2014 season, it says:

(2) If both players were on time to the match and were not away from the match for any period of time, players receive a tie for this match.

Your evidence to claim the new tournament rules are wrong are the old tournament rules! The new tournament rules allow for ties. New procedures have been written for how to resolve matches with ties. You may not think the new rules are fair, but you have no basis to say they are wrong.

Winning the first game is so important now.

ABSOLUTELY, just like last year when it was the only game. This is the first piece of advice I will give any player. If it was a legitimate game where it played out and both players had a chance to win, it was fair, and it very well could decide the match. This is what the new Swiss rules are designed to do. If the first game was over too quickly (we all see those players that are walking away from the tables while we are still mulliganing), these new rules at least give that loser a chance to draw or win. Or, they may just rightfully lose 2-0.

 

[vaporeon]

I understand that.

 

[Rainbowgym]

Determining the winner of a match:

1. Swiss Rounds: In a nutshell, only complete games count as a win.
Game 1 complete? The winner of Game 1 wins.
Game 3 complete? The winner of Game 3 wins.
EVERYTHING ELSE is a tie.

2. Eliminations rounds: Same rules as last year.

I read play game 1 as fast as you can and win, than take the remaining time to avoid a complete game 2.

Why on earth didn't they simply added the tie condition with the old rules?
First the prize count, than check game count, it's so easy.

 

[PokePop]

I think losjackal is outlining the reasoning AND the results of this new Swiss Match mechanism exactly right.
The first game is primary.
A good first game SHOULD determine the winner.
Everything else is to give players a chance to come back from a donk.

Furthermore, this new procedure gives set up decks a MUCH better chance of performing well in the Swiss rounds!
They can take their time to get a win in the first game and not have to worry so much about a second game that didn't finish wiping out their hard work.
I think that we will see a much wider variety of decks due to this change!

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

Another concise way I realized showing that this system is not very ideal:

(If it is true that wins=3 points, ties=1 point)

Expectation value for matches that end with 1 game done: 1.5 points
Expectation value for matches that end with 2 games done: 1.25 points
Expectation value for matches that end with 3 games done: 1.5 points

Guess how many games are likely to finish in 50 minutes? Probably around 2.
So you can do well if you play very fast/fast deck, or if you play very slow/slow deck, but if you play a sort of normal pace, you're at a disadvantage....That seems pretty silly to me.

 

[losjackal]

Ross, it seems the primary concern is that it's going to be too easy to end up in a tie Game 2, and ties hurt chances to top cut.

Let's say it another way. 50 min Bof3 is the perfect amount of time to play 2 games. 30 min Bof3 is the perfect amount of time to play 1 game. 70 min Bof3 is the perfect time to play 3 games. (roughly...stick with me here...)

To end up in a tie in 50 minutes in two games, both players need to be evenly matched in deck type and skill level. (I don't know how often that happens to quantify it.)

Of those even matchups, Player 1 will win both games 25% of the time, Player 2 will win both games 25% of the time, and they will tie 50% of the time.

So in the end, we are worried about a situation that will occur up to 50% of the time. (Again, this presumes every pairing is evenly matched.)

Would you agree that summarizes the primary concern? (If not, please adjust it as necessary. I promise I'm not trying to lead you into something...just trying to crystallize and quantify the problem, as you did above.)

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

Carlos, to me that is one of two primary concerns. Ties are likely and players are hurt by ties in a not very fair way as you summarize well above.

My other primary concern is what I said in other posts: The structure of no 'partial' games with these time limits will lead to stalling situations quite often. This concern isn't really about 'ties are bad/unfair' but rather a setup where the situation of one player playing deliberately very slowly to get their result and one player playing deliberately very quickly to get their result is a bad one for players and judges. This scenario will be far more prevalent than if we had best of 1s, longer time controls, or probably the easiest fix, 4-prize rules like in top cut. (With either 1 or 4 prize rule in game 3) I noticed you repeatedly didn't address this concern in your several posts here defending the new system, perhaps it's harder to quantify, but I think it's a very important one for the health of our tournaments. You would still have this problem even if you say made ties 1.5 points.

 

[losjackal]

If I can speak personally for a moment, if Player 1 wins Game 1 via a good game, I have no problem if they end up with the win for the Match, no matter how that comes about. If a player can play slowly for long enough for Game 2 to not finish, it tells me Game 1 took long enough to matter. I acknowledge that it will create more of these uncomfortable situations between players, but the Penalties and Judges are preparing for that. More importantly, I do not believe any given player will be able to get away slow playing game after game, all day long.


Now, what I'm hearing is that 50 minutes is enough for two games to be played, and often ends in a 1-1 Match draw. If the 4-prize rule is added to Game 2, I believe it will result in MORE ties, not fewer. (You might be talking more about Game 3, but let's focus on Game 2 for now.) Let me illustrate:

Without 4-prize rule:

Ash wins game 1 in 30 minutes.
After 20 more minutes, Ash is in the lead in Game 2, but the game doesn't finish, so Ash wins the match.
-or-
Ash wins game 1 in 30 minutes.
After 20 more minutes, Paul is in the lead Game 2, but the game doesn't finish, so Ash wins the match.

versus adding the 4-prize rule:

Ash wins game 1 in 30 minutes.
After 20 more minutes, Ash is in the lead in Game 2, Ash wins the game, so Ash wins the match.
-or-
Ash wins game 1 in 30 minutes.
After 20 more minutes, Paul is in the lead Game 2, Paul wins the game, so the match ends in a tie.


Given that is the most likely scenario (2 games that require up to 30 minutes each), how does adding the 4-prize rule make things better?

 

[pankanese]

IMO, if 30 minutes are spent on game 1, and the remaining 20 minutes are spent on stalling game 2 to virtually guarantee a win, then that's a waste of 20 minutes. Might as well revert it back to 30 minute swiss rounds and have more of them to counteract donkage. (I know people have already said this, just putting in my 2c.)

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

I acknowledge that it will create more of these uncomfortable situations between players, but the Penalties and Judges are preparing for that. More importantly, I do not believe any given player will be able to get away slow playing game after game, all day long.

Well, I guess I'll just disagree with you that this is a manageable situation. Yes a player who is egregiously going over the time limits again and again will get caught. It's not enough to fix the general problem, especially when there could be 100 masters matches still going with 10-15 minutes to go at a large event. Is it better if each player only goes into 'stall mode' a couple times in the event? It's just better to not have the incentive. Even if a player is slow playing in a not-that-egregious way, uncomfortable situation is a good way to put it. Half the matches or more could become 'uncomfortable' with the clock and the speed of your opponent's play being more of a concern than the game state. This just isn't good for the enjoyment of tournament game, so yes I'd rather have 4 prizes.

4 prizes in game 2 might make more ties, I'm not sure. If you have 4 prizes in game 2 and 4 or 1 prize in game 3 though, I think you will have less ties. Moreover, if you put in a game 2 4 prize rule to discourage slow play in game 2, and add a 4 or 1 prize rule in game 3 to encourage fast play, you also erase the incentive to stall, and games will be more enjoyable.

One way to help the 'ties' issue alone would be to make them worth 1.5 points. That or go with best of 1s, or longer time controls which would actually reduce ties instead of just reduce their unfair effect. If Pokemon isn't willing to do the bigger changes of best of 1 or longer time controls at this moment though, the prize rules are still an easy change that would make tournaments much more enjoyable, and probably a few less ties as well. The 4 prize rule to me seems 'fair' anyways, that's a significant chunk of a game. (I don't care about Durant counter-examples, that's 1% of deck types. Even most slow decks can get a relatively fair winner in a race to 4.)