Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Bad Strategy ... is against the rules.

I've heard players in my area claim that legally slow playing (ie; playing the clock to win strictly on time) is an art. Blows my mind, imo it's a dirty way to play. For example, during the SP era, one of the said players was bragging that he was playing an SP deck without a Mewtwo LvX counter, and he knew his opponent ran Mewtwo Lv.X going into the match. His plan was to take an early lead and then run out the clock. Apparently it worked. He said how he would use SP Radar and take a very long time searching, asking for cards left in deck, etc etc. I think he should have lost that game if that was the manner in which he won. Just to be clear, if he had won on time anyways but didn't abuse the clock, then I do think he would have deserved the win.

I think the clock is and should remain an important part of the game. A good deck can struggle with the clock, a good example being the Chandelure/Accelgor/Vileplume deck this past Nationals. I think that kept it in check. Some games simply would not end if it weren't for the clock in the rare example of a stalemate. The clock should regulate the game, but players should try not to play the clock. Some players may do so unknowingly, I know I have been told to increase my playing speed before. I think Judges should be quick to catch if a player is taking their time thinking or if they are just playing dirty. It's far too easy to legally stall.
 
Before anyone gets scared that they may get a GL for forgetting to sign the match slip, forgetting--not refusing--to sign the match slip is procedural error. You get a caution or warning for that, not a GL. Maybe a DGL is possible if both players forget to to sign it.
 
Shen said:
I've heard players in my area claim that legally slow playing (ie; playing the clock to win strictly on time) is an art. Blows my mind, imo it's a dirty way to play. For example, during the SP era, one of the said players was bragging that he was playing an SP deck without a Mewtwo LvX counter, and he knew his opponent ran Mewtwo Lv.X going into the match. His plan was to take an early lead and then run out the clock. Apparently it worked. He said how he would use SP Radar and take a very long time searching, asking for cards left in deck, etc etc. I think he should have lost that game if that was the manner in which he won. Just to be clear, if he had won on time anyways but didn't abuse the clock, then I do think he would have deserved the win.

I think the clock is and should remain an important part of the game. A good deck can struggle with the clock, a good example being the Chandelure/Accelgor/Vileplume deck this past Nationals. I think that kept it in check. Some games simply would not end if it weren't for the clock in the rare example of a stalemate. The clock should regulate the game, but players should try not to play the clock. Some players may do so unknowingly, I know I have been told to increase my playing speed before. I think Judges should be quick to catch if a player is taking their time thinking or if they are just playing dirty. It's far too easy to legally stall.
Click to expand...

What bothers me is the perception that certain "paces" of play are illegal while the equivalent, opposite pace is not. This seems ridiculous at first, but let me explain. The complaint here is someone who didn't really "deserve" it wins by running out the clock; had the clock not been a factor, it is unlikely (perhaps even guaranteed) said person would have lost.

So shouldn't it also bother the same people when a player wins because s/he can make a bunch of plays that would cost her or him the game, and/or are trying to use a bunch of "short cuts" like quickly spouting out effect results instead of clearly naming attacks? The former again can mean that someone wins who "shouldn't have", and the latter is still skirting the rules for legal play in general.
 
Otaku said:
So shouldn't it also bother the same people when a player wins because s/he can make a bunch of plays that would cost her or him the game, and/or are trying to use a bunch of "short cuts" like quickly spouting out effect results instead of clearly naming attacks? The former again can mean that someone wins who "shouldn't have", and the latter is still skirting the rules for legal play in general.
Click to expand...
The game itself is supposed to be brisk and lively anyway so some speed is looked for.

The problem is in the penalty guidelines and the tournament structure. When you have to do so much within a time constraint, both players are going to look at you with a funny look when you say "slow down."

Rushing is defined mostly as something the opponent does. Usually, the rushing on your own turn is a signal that the judge needs to watch the opponent for slow play. So, you won't get asked to slow down but the opponent may be asked to play faster if his play is not "brisk and lively."
 
"Brisk and lively" is one thing.

"John Moschitta, Jr." is another thing.

ShadowCard, I am reading what you are writing and I believe I understand, but I do not think I agree with it entirely. I should be clear though; I understand (at least to a point) what the rules are saying as well.

"Brisk and lively", right? There are also rules about clear communication. Especially for our more seasoned players at high level events, it seems logical to start ensuring an even pace; neither too fast nor too slow, and requiring clear communication.

Note that I have never attended any high level events, and it sadly has been far, far too long for even lower level events, so my concerns may be completely unfounded. If, in general, players are making sure to perform actions within a legal time frame while also making sure said actions are crystal clear to the opponent, then it is just a problem with my perception.
 
As is written in the penalty guidelines, if a player is playing really fast, the judge should monitor the opponent. If the opponent is playing at a lively speed, you could recommend the player not take shortcuts.

It is just so difficult to maintain a really fast speed that it is more probably the result of nervousness or excitement. I could be used for intimidation too so that will need to be looked at within the context of the game than here in writing. For time management, you're going to slow down eventually or mess up your own game instead of your opponent's.

I think we're taking more Game Temo than UC: Major though.
 
I think I am starting to blend two issues... but I've got to add a little subdivision to them for explanations sake.

1a) Player's need to take their turns and make their moves in a timely manner; they shouldn't play overly slow (whether trying to run out the clock or just being legitimately slow) and they shouldn't rush through turns, using shortcuts that can easily confuse even an experienced player.

1b) Slow play usually doesn't have an instant consequence without an outside authority stepping in. You may ultimately lose a game because you played too slowly and this actually helped your opponent, but that tends to only become apparent in hindsight. When someone is trying to play fast and use every "shortcut" they believe they can (barely showing their cards, announcing end results and not card plays, etc.) they are at least more likely to mess up in the short run (besides potentially helping a slower deck out by conserving time in the round).

2a) Tournaments have to have set amounts of time for rounds so there will always be a time limit for competitive play.

2b) Some players view a win due to time negatively, despite this being a facet of the game. A full fledged win is preferable, but the game is the game. What puzzles me is why it is somehow "wrong" to run out the clock with otherwise legal plays (e.g. I have enough legal actions to do, not illegally shuffling for extended periods) and yet players don't view it as wrong to win by overextending because you know your opponent never can hit back. Either both are legitimately using the rules to your advantage, or both are "playing the system" to attain a win you "didn't deserve".
 
Otaku said:
When someone is trying to play fast and use every "shortcut" they believe they can (barely showing their cards, announcing end results and not card plays, etc.) they are at least more likely to mess up in the short run (besides potentially helping a slower deck out by conserving time in the round).
Click to expand...
What you said on the previous page sums it up the best: the guidelines leave something to be desired.

What you are describing is not "fast play" but are actually signs of rushing... when done by a player when it is the opponent's turn. Playing too fast and causing a GPE because of that may be able to be assigned to that category but it is not defined in that way.

I do not see a problem with playing fast if the opponent is able to keep up because 1) it is difficult to keep up a fast speed so the player will eventually slow down, and 2) it is easier for both the opponent and the judge to slow down the player than it is to speed him up. In a game when a player announces the end result of the play without calling the actual play, the opponent can bring the game to a halt by pointing out any possible game state confusion by the shortcut and ask for explanation. Playing fast penalizes itself. On the other hand, players will persist to play slowly even after you mention that "the next time I have to say something it will result in a PL."

Otaku said:
2a) Tournaments have to have set amounts of time for rounds so there will always be a time limit for competitive play.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be a time limit for single games. JPN has events where the games have no time limit although there is an event time limit.
 
ShadowCard said:
It doesn't have to be a time limit for single games. JPN has events where the games have no time limit although there is an event time limit.
Click to expand...

That is still a time limit; structuring a tournament using something akin to the Japanese system still enforces a time limit. Instead of X minutes per round, you receive Y minutes to distribute between all your matches, and thus you could still end up in situations where utilizing time matters.

I am not well versed in the Japanese tournament format, so it might mitigate the benefits of using more time than you need for a move (if you can't ever "win" due to time), but using time limits to your advantage (or the opponent's detriment) is still there.
 
Japanese tournaments may not put a limit on individual games, but the tournament structure does more than enough to discourage slow play (and slow decks).
 
Shen said:
I'm unfamiliar with the Japanese tournament structure, care to explain?
Click to expand...

Best win streaks within an predetermined time period advance to cut. The faster you play, the more likely you are to accumulate a win streak sufficient for cut, ceteris paribus.
 
Deceptive play and unfair play is something that is not always discussed because it is assumed that everyone has an adequate degree of awareness.

So ...

Some players adapt undesirable methods of gameplay and believe themselves to be clever.
A discussion about the sorts of things one can and cannot do ALONG with documented penalization is the point of this thread.

For those of you scratching your head and wondering the intent of the post :)

It's great that so many of you took the time to read and chime in.

Thank you. :)
 
Shen said:
I'm unfamiliar with the Japanese tournament structure, care to explain?
Click to expand...
You have X minutes to win Y number of back-to-back games to advance to the next level. The shorter your games are, the more games you may be able to play. The way it has been described, you could end up playing a 45 minute game. Slow play doesn't matter in a format where playing slowly means you may not get the total number of wins you need to advance.

Consider league play. Each game has no time limit but you are within an event time limit if your goal is to get to the end of the row by the end of league. You need 8 games to get to the end of a row. If your league is a 3-hour league, you have to average less than 23 minutes a game or else you will not get to the end of the row by the end of league. Playing slow could mean irritating an opponent who also has the same goal of 8 games before the end of league but you will have to make up that lost time by playing a faster game later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top