Chatter-lock Stall FTW - Legal?

[MrMeches]

Would the post be here if the shoe was on the other foot? If Steve"[DEL]I Love to argue about rulings where I was not present at the event but feel my two cents deserves being cashed and continuously compare Pokemon to other sports even though it isn't[/DEL]" P was the Chatot user, would he have posted asking if it was a legal "Win" situation?

I think it is a valid strategy that forces those using Spiritomb to deck build expecting the lock. Deafen Lock could work as an example if the player has a Metal Resistant Pokemon...Pachirisu, Luxray GL....

Cheap, probably....legal, definitely. Gaming the system.. no more/less than the other decks previously mentioned.

 

[baby mario]

So legal = ethical?
I don't think that anybody really thinks that chatter lock was in violation of any rule in this instance.
I'm getting the feeling that it's becoming more about whether or not it could be considered gamesmanship to run a card for the sole purpose of taking all fun out of the game and abusing the rules in order to win.

To be fair, Chatot has always seen a reasonable amount of play because it has a great no Energy hand refresh/disruption recovery attack and free retreat. It's still a legit play for those reasons alone.

The whole chatter-lock strategy only really came about as a response to Spiritomb which is a lock/stall card in itself when played in Cursegar, so that is pretty ironic.

 

[butlerforhire]

No, SteveP, it is not absurd to insist that you stop making comparisons between Pokemon and all of the rest of the games out there (it is a TCG, not a sport, by the way. Anyone who views a trading card game as a sport is more than stretching it). Analogies may illustrate points but they do not actually hold any influence over how THIS particular game is played and will continue to be played. Pokemon is not Magic or Yugioh or LOTR. It has different rules. It is not chess-- you CAN make the "same" play more than 3 times in a row and suffer no consequences. What is the point in citing chess rules here? We are not playing chess, PUI does not care about how things are done in chess, the creators of this game in Japan do not care how things are done in chess, chess is mentioned nowhere in the tournament rules on Pokemon.com or in the rulebook, and how things are done in chess thus has absolutely zero relevance to Pokemon in general or Chatot's Chatter in particular. Extend this out to the rest of the comparisons you or anyone else has made or could make.

You just need to accept that using Chatter on a Spiritomb is entirely legitimate as a strategy regardless of how cheap you feel it is. You've gotten answers from people with authority such as Pokepop as well as the high end of the player base such as Cyrus and Pooka. You aren't going to get anyone to come in here and suddenly say "hey, let's outlaw Chatter as an attack option against Spiritomb unless the player using Chatot is behind in prizes." THAT is where the absurdity lies. You can keep arguing for us to keep this discussion open, but to what end? You obviously want to see someone in a position of power to declare Chatter locking to be a violation of gamesmanship, but it just isn't going to happen.

 

[bullados]

In the Pokemon video game, your attacks have PP's. Eventually, you're going to run out of PP's and have to take a turn to replenish, use another attack, or bring out another Pokemon. Too bad the concept of PP's wasn't designed into the TCG.

Think about this in the opposite way. You have a strategy (or a set of strategies) designed specifically to reduce your opponent's attacking PPs down to zero (yes, there are strategies like this) so that your opponent is locked into a Struggle battle while you still have all of your attacks. It's a very similar argument. You're forcing your opponent into an unwinnable corner and using your knowledge of his team and his strategies to manipulate who gets the last KO. Is it a legitimate strategy? Yep. I'd argue the same kind of thing here. It was legit with Corner (I lost a couple of games b/c of that card), it's been legit with Flygon, and it's still legit with Chatot.

 

[SteveP]

The typical Chatter lock can not be compared to Flytrap or Deafen lock or whatever has been mentioned here (except for Gliscor/UnownK). Flytrap aims for decking the opponent. Continuous Deafen will eventually result in kocking out enough Pokémon or decking the opponent.

Chatter lock will not lead to any of the original ways to win the game. It will lead you to the fourth way of winning the game, a tie breaker that is necessary to continue the tournament in time.

I beg to differ. Chatter-lock will eventually lead to someone decking out, depending on actions. In my situation, I had to continually Dark Palm my opponent's LuxraySP and other hitters to prevent him from completely taking over the game, and/or locking me for the game-ending KO. In that scenario, I would've eventually decked out first. I guess I could've been a real pain and let that happen, extending the match perhaps for another 45 minutes before the inevitable. Without the time-limit, eventually, someone would deck out, and/or draw enough prizes. But, that could've taken 2+ hours.

Years ago, when Shedinja/fossil decks were around, they changed the fossil KO rule primarily for the reason to prevent the "seemingly-endless-game-until-someone-decked" scenario. Chatter-lock, though a different beast due to it's ability to win at the desired moment, isn't too far from the Shedinja/fossil scenario, IMO.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

No, SteveP, it is not absurd to insist that you stop making comparisons between Pokemon and all of the rest of the games out there (it is a TCG, not a sport, by the way. Anyone who views a trading card game as a sport is more than stretching it). Analogies may illustrate points but they do not actually hold any influence over how THIS particular game is played and will continue to be played. Pokemon is not Magic or Yugioh or LOTR. It has different rules. It is not chess-- you CAN make the "same" play more than 3 times in a row and suffer no consequences. What is the point in citing chess rules here? We are not playing chess, PUI does not care about how things are done in chess, the creators of this game in Japan do not care how things are done in chess, chess is mentioned nowhere in the tournament rules on Pokemon.com or in the rulebook, and how things are done in chess thus has absolutely zero relevance to Pokemon in general or Chatot's Chatter in particular. Extend this out to the rest of the comparisons you or anyone else has made or could make.

You just need to accept that using Chatter on a Spiritomb is entirely legitimate as a strategy regardless of how cheap you feel it is. You've gotten answers from people with authority such as Pokepop as well as the high end of the player base such as Cyrus and Pooka. You aren't going to get anyone to come in here and suddenly say "hey, let's outlaw Chatter as an attack option against Spiritomb unless the player using Chatot is behind in prizes." THAT is where the absurdity lies. You can keep arguing for us to keep this discussion open, but to what end? You obviously want to see someone in a position of power to declare Chatter locking to be a violation of gamesmanship, but it just isn't going to happen.

I compare Pokemon to other games.

"Stop that!"

I compare Pokemon to other TCGs.

"Stop that!"

I compare "Chatter-lock stall FTW on time" to stalling tactics.

"Stop that!"

I compare Chatter-lock to similiar actions in Pokemon.

"Stop that!"

I compare different ways to use Chatter-lock to win a game.

"See, Chatter-lock is completely legal."

I guess I should only make comparisons that support YOUR points-of-view. :tongue:

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Would the post be here if the shoe was on the other foot? If Steve"[del]I Love to argue about rulings where I was not present at the event but feel my two cents deserves being cashed and continuously compare Pokemon to other sports even though it isn't[/del]" P was the Chatot user, would he have posted asking if it was a legal "Win" situation?

I don't know you - you don't know me. I wouldn't use a Chatot-lock strategy merely to eat all the game time to win on the last turn when time is called. But, I suppose I have to play against players who would, so I must expect such tactics.

BTW, why are you arguing in this topic? You weren't present at my match! :tongue:

 

[ChaosJim]

Erik, would you have decked out in the Maron situation had you not KOed your castform? I think that it is valid to treat it like he was playing to win via decking you out. Maybe I'm alone in that assumption.

Steve, I see Chatterlock as a way people can use an alternative strategy. People often complain when a 'dominant deck' exists, like GG in 2008. People have complained about SP. I feel like an alternative strategy that isn't its own deck shouldn't be frowned upon. If time limits did not exist, I think Chatterlock would still be a viable way to win, which only further legitimizes it in my eyes.

 

[Phazon Elite]

I agree that this is dumb, but it's a legitmate way to win the game.

 

[pat460]

Doing things like this is legit, and I'de say its ethical as well, because your taking advantage of your opponents faults. Its also hilarious to watch reactions from people.

 

[pat460]

tl;dr "I don't care about winning because I like to act self righteous about strategies that I dislike."

 

[pat460]

Thanks for replying to my claiming you act self righteous with a self righteous comment.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I think your confusing yourself with my lack of interest in a Pokemon match with that of someone who cares enough to be self righteous:nonono: I only care enough to post here and state my distaste for this "strategy".

As a fore note, I'm only picking on you because you have a few traits that I see in most of the people complaining about these strategies, and that have stayed true to that group since I started playing TCG's.

You say that you choose to not use a strategy such as chat lock(which, btw, I haven’t seen, but I assume is something like corner lock from pidgey back in the day from reading the thread) because you 'don’t care that much about the game'. This could be true, but if it were, I doubt you’d be on a ptcg forum, in the gossip section, discussing strategies. You obviously care about ptcg, which is good. When you play it, I assume you do your best to win, which is also good. But you choose not to use strategies that you view as cheap, which is also fine. However, when you call these strategies that you don't like 'illegitimate', 'cheap', etc., this is where you start to become the stereotypical 'I don’t like this strategy, so I'll be self-righteous about it' guy.

The fact that you don’t like the strategy is fine, and very understandable. But you have to accept that it is a strategy, it isn’t some super cheap way to win and it is perfectly legit. People that allow themselves to be locked into it do just that- they allow it. When they built their deck, they didn't put in a way to get out of it. This is an error on their part, and playing on it is simply playing on an error your opponent made. I think it’s universally acceptable in the tournament scene to take advantage of your opponent’s misplays. Well, this is a pre-game misplay in deck construction, and completely their fault. so locking them because they made an error before the game is exactly the same as playing on one they made during the game, it just makes a lot more of a boring game to play, and isn't the most skill intensive way to win.

Skill intensive-no
Legit- yes.

Calling it illegit would be the same thing as calling playing on your opponent’s misplays, and if you think that’s immoral, maybe the competitive scene isn’t for you, and that’s fine. Casual can be just as fun if not more, but if you’re a casual player, stick to casual issues.

EDIT: posts deleted?

 

[batmylashes]

Using the Chatot against a Spiritomb, may not do any damage, but it is a legal move that does have an effect on the game because it makes it so the defending Pokemon can't retreat. As long as the person playing it isn't slow-playing or doing things to outright stall you for time, I don't see anything wrong with the Chatter lock.

(Still totally sucks to have it used against you.) >.<

 

[SteveP]

So, is Chatter-lock a tactic to exploit a deck's weakness, or is it a strategy to exploit the timed-game rule? Just because the first tactic is admirable, well, that doesn't necessarily rationalize the acceptability of the second tactic.

 

[pat460]

So, is Chatter-lock a tactic to exploit a deck's weakness, or is it a strategy to exploit the timed-game rule? Just because the first tactic is admirable, well, that doesn't necessarily rationalize the acceptability of the second tactic.

Its a strategy that exploits a deck's weakness to exploit the timed game rule. It does both at the same time.

 

[ColoradoSunrise]

steve!!! this is tyler.... i am so so sorry about the poketurn thing i didnt even realize that until i read this, but i could have chattered til i dragon rused or trash bolted the active tomb, which would only have been a turn later, i had everything in hand, i also could have leveled up luxray and flash impacted that turn... i feel like such a jerk for not winning in a legit way,,, but chatter lock is pro, if i didnt get the chatot i still was gonna azelf lock you because of your queen.... but gg, hopefully our next match will go alot diferently!

 

[butlerforhire]

Again, comparisons mean nothing. Pokemon is Pokemon is Pokemon; its rule are its rules are its rules.

Nowhere in any of the sets of rules that we have is there a condemnation of Chatter-locking or any similar tactic, nor will there be. This thread reads like a one-man crusade to transform sour grapes into an errata that doesn't even remotely need to be considered.

You can't even argue that the game is permanently in a state of limbo either because as you demonstrated, Spiritomb actually can attack back. The one being locked might have to wait 17 turns to draw into their lone Rainbow energy. Does that make every turn up until that point invalid? Of course it doesn't, just like it isn't invalid to use Chatter for the entire game either. Preventing retreat is an effect that serves a purpose. It isn't just some pointless move done to drag a match into a stalemate like in a situation between opposing Mewtwo lv. Xs with no other Pokemon in play on either side and Uxies coming down periodically only to Restore the deck back. That would be an infinite loop that would never end with a prize drawn or a deck out or a benching scenario, unlike Chatter lock, which will result in the opponent using Chatot drawing a prize as soon as time is called, or possibly a deck-out against certain decks.

As others have already said here, if you let yourself get Chatter locked, you deserve to lose. This game is about a synthesis of two things: deck building and actual playing. You fail at the first if you include no outs to Chatter and you fail at the second if you have those outs in your deck but deny yourself from using them, ie. you do run Unown G but you get your bench full, or you do run Warp energy but you already wasted all of them before you ever got Chatter locked.

Don't put this flaw in your building or playing on your opponent. That is a low thing to do. You do realize you are challenging the legitimacy of your opponent's win over you, right? You clearly want people to agree with you that Chatter-locking is against gamesmanship and is thus illegal, and you're undercutting his victory in the process. Mr. Meches asked a good question earlier. Would you seriously be making this case if you were the one who had the chance to Chatter lock an opponent?

 

[SteveP]

steve!!! this is tyler.... i am so so sorry about the poketurn thing i didnt even realize that until i read this, but i could have chattered til i dragon rused or trash bolted the active tomb, which would only have been a turn later, i had everything in hand, i also could have leveled up luxray and flash impacted that turn... i feel like such a jerk for not winning in a legit way,,, but chatter lock is pro, if i didnt get the chatot i still was gonna azelf lock you because of your queen.... but gg, hopefully our next match will go alot diferently!

Hey Tyler. I had the game at one point but blew it when I didn't go ahead on prizes. No big deal about the Poke Turns. Unless you had the LuxrayLvX in hand or a way to get it (ie., Bebe's), you would've lost because you had already retreated your Chatot when you played the Poke Turns. Without my Spiritomb locked, I would've retreated and KO'd you for the win. Nevertheless, absolutely no hard feelings because I should've caught the error myself.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Don't put this flaw in your building or playing on your opponent. That is a low thing to do. You do realize you are challenging the legitimacy of your opponent's win over you, right? You clearly want people to agree with you that Chatter-locking is against gamesmanship and is thus illegal, and you're undercutting his victory in the process. Mr. Meches asked a good question earlier. Would you seriously be making this case if you were the one who had the chance to Chatter lock an opponent?

Wow, your last paragraph displays how little you've read or understood what I've written. I won't even bother to dispute your words here because my previous comments already have.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Its a strategy that exploits a deck's weakness to exploit the timed game rule. It does both at the same time.

Exploiting loopholes in the rules to gain an advantage is gamesmanship/rules lawyering, plain and simple.

I'm not saying that Chatter-lock, by itself, is at issue here. I'm just trying to make the point that using it merely to exploit the timed game rule "smells like" gamesmanship and/or stalling-for-the-win to me.

If judges and players feel that's acceptable, then I'll leave this topic alone and just realize that I'm in the minority.

 

[butlerforhire]

Good way to be dismissive.

Everyone does "feel" that Chatter-locking is "acceptable," (read: they know it is completely legal and not a violation of any rule whatsoever) so you can go ahead and do what you said and leave this topic alone. You aren't just in the minority-- you're flat-out incorrect in asserting that gamesmanship has anything to do with this whatsoever.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

Good way to be dismissive.

Everyone does "feel" that Chatter-locking is "acceptable," (read: they know it is completely legal and not a violation of any rule whatsoever) so you can go ahead and do what you said and leave this topic alone. You aren't just in the minority-- you're flat-out incorrect in asserting that gamesmanship has anything to do with this whatsoever.

1. Your post reads like a how to guide for personal attacks that try to barely stay within the forum rules.

2. Where did SteveP say he was going to leave the topic alone?

3. "Legal" = "Acceptable"?
It wouldn't exactly be a horrible thing to show an ounce of decorum.
Seriously, are you in a glass box of emotion right now or something? :lol:

Maybe he'll stop dismissing you when you either:
A. Stop making it personal.
or
B. Become slightly better at trolling.

Yugioh Had Yata Lock
Magic Has Chant stick
Raw Deal had Chi-town Chyna
Pokemon Has Chat-lock

Is it ethical? Shrugs
Legal- Before cards were errated or banned.. Yes
Fun to play or play against? Depends on what you call on fun and what you do in your free time.

Does it win games? Yes it does
Simple as that.

Using a bunch of stuff that other companies issued erratas for or outright banned because they did the same thing is a horrible way to say that Chat-lock is just fine.
It almost seems like you're agreeing with SteveP. lol

As I said in my first post though, the Chatter lock only comes into play if you were trying to lock the opponent to begin with and it isn't exactly super hard to get out of it, so I doubt anything will ever come of it.
That being said, when a player states that their intention is to remove the skill from the game and abuse the time limit rules in order to get a win without honestly playing the game, I don't see how you could really say there was no gamesmanship at play.
Don't forget that people trying to abuse the rules in order to gain an unfair advantage without actually breaking the rules is what brought about that whole, "gamesmanship" thing in this game to begin with.

As far as I'm concerned, it was a legal play and the lock only worked because the opponent was trying to lock in the first place, but just dismissing something with no thought is kind of close minded and if everybody thought that way, we would never have had any new rules and/or penalties since the very first season of OP.

 

[NoPoke]

using Chatter every turn until time is called is legal. I'd add some more to PokePOPs' response.

• Lock attacks have been in the format for many years.
• Where an attack cannot be used the following turn it is explicitly written out on the cards.
• The game state changes every turn as each player gets to draw a card. More, as you are drawing from the deck which the game considers can hold any legal card the game as embodied in the judge staff must not interfere.
• Chatter lock even in an untimed game may lead to a win condition as one player will run out of cards first.
• There is nothing inherently wrong with an opponent telling you their current plan-of-attack.

-------
To address the specific question posed by SteveP in the opening post I do not believe that Chatter lock or similar meet the requirements of "Making legal plays which have no effect on the game in progress to manipulate the time remaining in a match." in the penalty guidelines.
--------

I don't believe that Chatter lock needs fixing but equally it isn't a fun way to lose, I don't think that it breaks the Spirit Of The Game principles for competative play but I can see that others might.

Chatter lock is effective because when time is called the player using Chatter can expect the game to end on their turn. If POP wish to weaken a lock strategy then changing how the game ends on time would be the best approach. Time+one turn would make a simple lock strategy much less effective as would the re-introduction of draws.

Match play too weakens the effectiveness of a lock at delivering a round win.

good thread, definitely worthy of discussion!

 

[Dennis Hawk]

In the Claydol environment, an untimed game with Chatter locking could be put into an eternal loop, if the player Chatter locking would be in worse position (bad matchup, weakness, etc.) if the match was actually played out (ie. Chatter locking would be stopped and other method of victory would be tried to get achieved). Of course, in casual environment, this kind of games would be propably solved as draw, as the Chatter locker has no intention to let the lock go and the one Chatter locked would be unable to do anything to solve the Chatter lock.

But as we are talking about tournament games here, with time limit as a ruling, you will have to consider it as a strategy. Think of 2008 metagame with GG and 30 minute time limits - no other deck could be played as Gardy player could manipulate the time so efficiently that there was no change for comeback to slower decks. With 40 minute time limit in Worlds, Empozong became surprisingly effective choice, despite the slower, scramble-oriented and spreading play. This proves that time is a part of the tournament play and will affect the metagame even if Chatter locks and such would be considered illegal plays. Which they aren't.

Let's take DialgaChomp for example, with something like Unown B + Unown J -engine for returning Pokéturns in one's hand. You would get an infinite healing resource with Garchomp C Lv.X (if we calculate that the other deck's damage output would be 60-80 per turn, with Dialga blocking 40 from it) every 5 turns. You KNOW that you can win the matchup with Deafening for the whole game as it disables Pokéturns, PlusPowers, Expert Belts, Reversals/Warp Points and other things which could possibly lead to the situation where your opponent would be able to draw a prize card or a few. Your opponent plays a deck where he or she can nullify the damage every turn, but they have a bench vulnerability which you can utilize with Garchomp C - though enabling them to use trainer cards to completely turn the game around once the lock would be broken.

Would you:
1. Break the lock, go for bench snipe early, get your advantage taken away and go lose the game
or
2. Keep the lock until time was called, go for the bench snipe with even prizes and go win the game.

This "Be a man and let's play this out for real!" -attitude against Chatter lock also attacks every other lock deck, and when one kind of lock deck would be ruled illegal, it wouldn't stop there. If a deck has selected a different strategy than some other deck, why would it have to change it's natural strategy into something that's not it's strongest part? That's just silly. Lock decks are the most nerve requiring decks, as you basically give your opponent's deck every possibility to win the game from the stage you start locking. Topdeck a warp energy? You're immediately placed in a bad position if you're trying to drag it to the time limit with even prizes. Play down Unown G? Not as bad as Warp Energy, but forces you to adapt. Start attacking with Tomb? You better have something before Chatot has 5 damage counters on it. It will be slightly more effective when Unown G rotates out but retreat blockers stay in the format with Spiritomb, but then you just need to counter it with another way. By leaving your deck open to this kind of tactics, it's something that you can't blame the rules from.

And if you proceed to evolve a Nidoqueen to your bench when you have Tomb without Unown G in your deck, you're just begging to get not just Chatot locked, but also Azelf locked, which is something that's played in almost every deck in the environment.

The rulings are fine. Basically most competitive games are BASED on time limits. If you know you're just that much stronger in the penalty shots, why not go with 0-0 for the whole game and the overtime, if it gives you a strategic advantage? You will need to work for the whole game to keep it even, and if you're in defensive position for the whole game, there's no telling what your opponent will be throwing at you.

If you get locked and can't counter, just tap out...