Chatter-lock Stall FTW - Legal?

[NoPoke]

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.

the initial question isn't really an either or though.

Chatter lock exploits an opponents inability to break the lock. ie it exploits that opponents decks weakness. Chatter lock is used because it is effective at achieving the goal of a game win in a timed environment.

Chatter lock is no more exploiting a game rule than reducing a Pokemon's HP through devolution exploits a game rule. Or choosing to go second when you are sure you have the Donk. All wins are ultimately the result of legitimately exploiting game rules. Of course not all wins feel satisfying, and not all losses are determined by player skill alone.

 

[ChaosJim]

For a topic that seems so clear cut to me, there is a ton of discussion on this issue. I can't help but wonder if someone who was less a pillar of the community than Steve was the OP would it still be unlocked?

What I like about Pokemon: there is no card that you can put into your deck that will guarantee you a loss if it gets locked, provided you prepare for this eventuality during deckbuilding. SSU, Unown G + retreating, Skuntank G + Stadium to KO yourself, and Warp Energy are just examples of modified legal reasons this isn't a big deal.

For people saying 'but what if maybe the Chatter locking player couldn't win otherwise?'
-The game state can't know that, nor should the judges be looking at that, especially given how early the lock can go in (T1 with a DCE).

 

[SteveP]

Time+one turn would make a simple lock strategy much less effective as would the re-introduction of draws.

Come on NoPoke, I know you're smarter than that. Chatter-lock GUARANTEES you'll have the last turn, regardless of how long you extend the time/turns. Plus, draws wouldn't help either. Why agree to a draw when you know you're going to get the last turn for the win?

But yeah, there's a card that guarantees you'll go first (Sableye), so why not one that guarantees you'll go last? The only difference is, Sableye might get the first-turn win, but Chatter-lock stall guarantees the last-turn win.

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

At the very least, "Chatter-lock stall FTW" is undesireable in the broader sense of the game. Some players might find it desireable, but the game itself would be much better off without the ability to carry out such tactics. The Shedinja/fossil stall deck was "legal" (though it can't really compare to the Chatter-lock FTW tactic), but it was definately undesireable to the game. Rules were changed, probably because of such decks.

This whole rationalization that Spiritomb is locking me, so I'll lock it is rather baseless. Spiritomb is meant to stay active for X-number of turns, then retreat and let the "big boys" take over. If Chatter-lock was meant to do the same, I'd have no problem. But, the problem "comes to surface" when players abuse it in the "Chatter-lock stall FTW" scenario.

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

Just one last comment that "pokes fun" :tongue: at perhaps why judges might deem this tactic as acceptable, maybe even desireable. The game WILL end at 40 minutes.

 

[SHPanda]

chatter-lock is something you walk into. If your playing cards that could be chatter locked and then surprised that it happened, then you got some brushing up to do. Seriously getting chatter locked is the same as misplaying, its it a illegal move for your opponent to not go easy on you because you made a mistake?

 

[Cyrus]

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.

Disagreed. I think that there is occasionally a gamesmanship element at work here: when somebody is trying to win the game through means other than playing, then it may always be interpreted as such.

Chatter Lock itself isn't gamesmanship, but the request of your opponent to scoop could be considered such. This topic has made me reconsider my approach to dealing with people when I get a Mewtwo LV.X on the board.


P.S. And yea, SHPanda hit the nail on the head: if you get chatter locked, then you misplayed. End of story.

 

[NoPoke]

@SteveP :Oops Doh and some more characters *embarassed*

Draws do work to reduce the impact though because you don't get to decide to continue the drawn game. ( Chatter Lock still avoids a loss but that isn't the same as guaranteeing the win )

I absolutely agree that the game will be no fun if chatter lock was everywhere. But as it has counters I don't think that will happen. I do not agree that winning on time through the use of chatter lock is an abuse. The card exists and is well known, the strategy has been around and used for many years. As there is no way of building a 60 card deck that can answer every possibility players have to decide what the metagame might throw at them. Losing to chatter lock is no different to playing fire in a Kingdra dominated environment.

========

@Cyrus: Though asking your opponent if they want to scoop might be gamesmanship that does not automatically make such a request gamesmanship. Ask politely and I'd have no issue with the request. That said I think you are correct to be wary of making such requests. Some risks just aren't worth taking.

 

[algernon]

This whole rationalization that Spiritomb is locking me, so I'll lock it is rather baseless. Spiritomb is meant to stay active for X-number of turns, then retreat and let the "big boys" take over. If Chatter-lock was meant to do the same, I'd have no problem. But, the problem "comes to surface" when players abuse it in the "Chatter-lock stall FTW" scenario.

Sorry but I must disagree with the above. Cursegar is built to hit my active and switch to either a mime or tomb to shut down the opponents decks and options. Any Cursegar player would be more than happy to "abuse" mime or tomb for the enter game in order to "stall" my ability to play trainers or attack with less than 3 energy. How is this any different than me locking you with chatot. In addition, for other decks that run tomb the intent is to shut down, lock, disable the opponents set up so you can control the game from the on set. If you win the game in 3 turns because I can't attack or set up due to lock (not play cards in my deck or attacks as intended) is that any less of an issue than a game spanning chatlock?

I am not saying its fun, but it is fair & based on the rules we have been given. To argue degrees of cheapness, legality, and to imply a person won cheaply IMHO promotes a environment of poor sportsmanship and victim mentality that is not within spirit of the game that we all are supposed adopt. I think it opens a slippery slope of not respecting an opponent's win if one doesn't value the deck / match outcome etc.

 

[ColoradoSunrise]

lux x in hand. just the turns and bats were easier to find in the mess!

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

lux x in hand. just the turns and bats were easier to find in the mess!

Was that meant for the trading forum? lol

SSU, Unown G + retreating, Skuntank G + Stadium to KO yourself, and Warp Energy are just examples of modified legal reasons this isn't a big deal.

It might be hard to SSU through a chatter-locked Spiritomb (even though it is your own lock card). lol

SHPanda, there are always variables at play in this kind of case.
What if all of the warps were already used to get out of locks and they keep using nailing heads on Reversal?
It isn't like somebody dedicated to the plan of taking the gameplay out of the game is going to stop and go, "Shoot, they played one Warp Energy so I guess I should just never try to lock again".

Chatter lock is no more exploiting a game rule than reducing a Pokemon's HP through devolution exploits a game rule. Or choosing to go second when you are sure you have the Donk. All wins are ultimately the result of legitimately exploiting game rules.

I thought the whole point of devolving the pokemon was to revert it to a weaker point (I seriously don't see how that wasn't what the plan was when they made cards to do it).
Also, I don't think it's about exploiting game rules as much as it is about the exploiting tournament rules (I know it's a fine line).

Also, as crazy as it sounds, with high level events all requiring decklists, maybe the judges shouldn't be forced to assume to a player's deck can contain any legal card when they already have a record of every card in the deck.

 

[SteveP]

lux x in hand. just the turns and bats were easier to find in the mess!

Yeah Tyler, I figured I'd lost when I walked back into the Chatter-lock after my dumb-a** move not to KO you when I had the chance. I had the means to avoid the game-ending win, but I didn't, so I bow to you in defeat.

Now, if we had gone on for 35 minutes Chatter-locking and passing before you won on time (supposing I had no way out of the lock), that would've been undesireable for the game of Pokemon. I have no problem with someone Chatter-locking the last few turns in the waning minutes to drain the clock for-the-win (like the kneel-down in football so they can kick the winning field goal). The tragedy is when someone uses it for the majority of the game-time to win on the last play. No game is meant to be played that way.

Anyway, what if my only 2-3 outs from the lock had been prized? I suppose I STILL built a weak deck because I didn't have the ability to peek-n-swap my prizes, right? :tongue:

My point is this. Just because there are ways to counter something, that doesn't necessarily justify it.

 

[Absoltrainer]

http://www.pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40158&highlight=corner

It appears Pidgey has passed his teachings onto Chatot. Them bird Pokemons is EVIL!!!!!

 

[SHPanda]

SHPanda, there are always variables at play in this kind of case.
What if all of the warps were already used to get out of locks and they keep using nailing heads on Reversal?
It isn't like somebody dedicated to the plan of taking the gameplay out of the game is going to stop and go, "Shoot, they played one Warp Energy so I guess I should just never try to lock again".

Nice try, thats still a example of someone being outplayed. Spiritomb is the only pokemon that can be locked like this, and if you left yourself that vulnerable to it, then shame on you for not thinking of the possibility and leaving yourself without a answer to it.

 

[SteveP]

Nice try, thats still a example of someone being outplayed. Spiritomb is the only pokemon that can be locked like this, and if you left yourself that vulnerable to it, then shame on you for not thinking of the possibility and leaving yourself without a answer to it.

So, lets say your lock-breakers are prized, as well as any means to get them out or your prizes. Outplayed?

JeremyB's point is valid. The existance of counters does not necessarily justify an undesireable, exploitive tactic.

(WARNING - another analogy - proceed at your own risk)

China nukes us back to the stone age. Shame on us for not building a missle defense system. :tongue:

 

[Lawman]

No difference from deafen by the Dialga tank player vs shuppet donk or other type of trainer heavy decks. There are many cards that have disabling attacks. It IS a strategy to lock down an oppo, otherwise....WHY would the designers put such cards out there???

Keith

 

[SteveP]

No difference from deafen by the Dialga tank player vs shuppet donk or other type of trainer heavy decks. There are many cards that have disabling attacks. It IS a strategy to lock down an oppo, otherwise....WHY would the designers put such cards out there???

It would sure be nice if we could stay on topic. This discussion is NOT about locks in-general; rather, it was started to address the specific situation where a mega-turns Chatter-lock exploits the timed-game rule to the brink of gamesmanship. It might not completely cross over into gamesmanship, but it "toes the line" about as closely as any tactics I've seen.

 

[arMILO]

i might not have the fancy words in my post that most other people will use, but I do have experience. I've never been chatter locked because I have always played warp enegy or not let myself get locked, (just load your bench with stage 2's, and knock yourself out via damage. but I just cannot see how anyone would have a problem with being chatter locked, it's a legitimate move that i bet the big brains at the PCL well knew what they had done. If you misplay or don't anticipate getting locked, you've already lost and should not have sour grapes about it. I might be missing the point of this thread still being a youth, but it just seems like sour grapes. Though amends have been made between locker and lockee, the thread should have died then. Tech in two warp energy and move on.

 

[Dennis Hawk]

So, lets say your lock-breakers are prized, as well as any means to get them out or your prizes. Outplayed?

I start with Azelf with 4 Magikarps prized against your CurseGar. Should you give me a trainer turn out of good will in order for me to nail the SSUs to my Azelf so that I can get Karps out from prizes? If this was a tournament final, would you? No rule is forcing you to do so, but at least you would give your opponent a change to win by playing badly.

If you're afraid that your 6 counters will be prized, play 7th.

Not a valid point. If I got a dollar from each "I lost because X was prized" I hear, I'd be a wealthy man. Would you like to argue against prize mechanic?

 

[SHPanda]

So, lets say your lock-breakers are prized, as well as any means to get them out or your prizes. Outplayed?

JeremyB's point is valid. The existance of counters does not necessarily justify an undesireable, exploitive tactic.

(WARNING - another analogy - proceed at your own risk)

China nukes us back to the stone age. Shame on us for not building a missle defense system. :tongue:

yah i guess if you really wanna reach and say azelf and all the unown g you play are prized well, then tough luck. though the odds of them both being prized are so low that i can't believe you actually brought that up as a excuse.

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

yah i guess if you really wanna reach and say azelf and all the unown g you play are prized well, then tough luck. though the odds of them both being prized are so low that i can't believe you actually brought that up as a excuse.

Low odds?
Kind of like the odds of a coin flip landing on its side at a high-level event? I know a few people remember that one. :lol:

Not a valid point. If I got a dollar from each "I lost because X was prized" I hear, I'd be a wealthy man. Would you like to argue against prize mechanic?

I've had more than my fair share of opponents say that after a game as well, but when they flip over the prizes and almost all of their key cards are prized, it kind of cheapens the win for me (kind of like beating a mute person at karaoke).

 

[MrMeches]

Nice try, thats still a example of someone being outplayed. Spiritomb is the only pokemon that can be locked like this, and if you left yourself that vulnerable to it, then shame on you for not thinking of the possibility and leaving yourself without a answer to it.

Not necessarily true. You could Bright Look up a LuxLvX and then Deafen Lock them. They are taking no damage, and cannot be Turned. Same thing.

Is it gamesmanship I think is the real question?

I wouldn't consider it until the taunting begins! Consider using statements like I am going to do this until time then KO you for the win, that is definitely gamesmanship. But unfortunately it becomes a he said she said unless the Judge is there to hear it.

So the question has variables to consider before making a determination.

Chatter-Locking is not illegal nor is the act of doing it to take the prize for a win at time. The player's statements is what becomes Penalty worthy, not the Chatter -Lock IMHO.

Fish