Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Current State of the game… As seen by Jimmy Ballard

I think people playing Machamp and Kingdra attempting to win on turn 1 are using a legitimate strategy available to them in this format. I (and I think most players) don't have a problem with the people playing these decks. The problem I have is that this is available as a legitimate strategy.

That being said, I'd rather see no change implemented than something radical like allowing players to search their decks for basics, or 2/3 match play with a short time limit in swiss. I don't know how many times I have to say this for someone to actually read and comprehend it, but 2/3 swiss does NOT change anything. Let's say you set up for a normal, single-game swiss match against Machamp and lose on turn 1. Now what happens if we were actually playing 2/3? I think it's safe to assume that after setup for the second game we're 5 minutes into the match. That leaves us with 35 or 40 minutes in a 40 or 45 minute match. Do you think a deck that attempts to win by taking 6 prizes wins not one, but two games in 35-40 minutes total very often? What if they just pull off the first win and it takes them 30 minutes? After setup for the third game we are left with 0-5 minutes for the third game. Do you think a deck that tries to set up and win a long game like Dialga or Tyranitar or a deck DESIGNED to start taking prizes on the first turn of the game will win a 5 minute game?

Now, let's take a look at it from a different angle. Again, we're playing 2/3 swiss with a 40-45 minute time limit. Let's say we're playing Tyranitar or Gardevoir or whatever setup-oriented deck you want against Machamp or Kingdra. Let's say the 'Turn 1' deck gets an average start and the 'setup-oriented' deck wins a 30-minute game. Currently the setup-oriented deck gets the win and a nice pat on the back for a well-earned victory. But now it's 2/3 match play and there's still 10 minutes left. Well guess what, 10 minutes is enough time for Machamp or Kingdra to pull off a turn 1 win, so now the setup-oriented deck has to hold its breath and see what happens. If Machamp/Kingdra pulls off the turn 1 win, GUESS WHAT? we're back to my previous example in which we have <5 minutes for a third game, and a setup-oriented deck has virtually no chance in sudden death against Machamp or Kingdra.

I think these illustrations show exactly why 2/3 swiss with a short time limit DOES NOT solve the problem of turn 1 wins. It actually makes things a bit worse.
 
Slimey, as someone who uses 45 min 2/3 in the swiss I'm going to beg to differ.

No it does not fix the problem of T1 wins entirely, but as I have seen the opposite of what you claim will happen occuring regularly, I would say you overstate the case against using matchplay as the standard even with 45minute matches.

Right now with single game swiss if you are T1'd or have a poor hand or draw dead you have had it. You get no second opportunity to continue to play and try to recover. Your time at the table playing is over.

More matches are decided by sudden death after 45 minutes of match play than 40 minutes of single game swiss. Even so the majority of matches still complete 2-0 or 2-1 within the 45 minute round. The majority of players are not using totally T1 focused decks over here. The setup decks often complete a game well within 20minutes.

I think it helps to have actually tried the 45minute 2/3 format rather than just find fault in it. It does have faults, though not the one you highlight. Yet for all its faults it does increase the amount of time spent playing at the tables and it does, despite what may seem obvious, allow for both recovery and even the defeat of fast decks by more setup oriented decks. Speed is still important: there is still no point in building a deck that has a near guaranteed win at 50+ minutes but a near guaranteed loss at 30- minutes.

The tournament structure is entirely decided by POP.
Our modified format is a TPCi decision where marketing have a big say.
Game rules are entirely decided by PCL in Japan.
 
Last edited:
^ IF there are less decks designed around Turn 1s I could see matchplay working, like you say. Perhaps that is a decent idea. I'd like to hear more opinions on matchplay swiss.

Also got a question about matchplay for the Europeans. The 4-deep rule is implemented, right? That's also another place where I would have a problem. Player 1 wins Game 1 in 30 minutes. 15 minutes left for Game 2. Time is called. Game is tied at 3-3, Player 2 takes his 4th prize to win it. So, now it goes to sudden death? Where Player 2 has an equal chance to win? That doesn't seem right to me. Player 1 won a legitimate FULL Game 1. Now of course the argument here is going to be that Player 2 was going to win Game 2. Well answer me this:

How many times do you think in a large tournament like U.S. Nationals would 45 minute matchplay swiss go to sudden death? I bet a lot. I bet you we would be adding another 10-15 minutes to the round. Between the player finishing their turn in Game 2, shuffling up and dealing for Game 3 and playing Game 3. So why not just make it 50-60 minutes instead? Or even better, let Game 2 finish if it's something like 4-3! I feel the same way about this with 60 minutes in top cuts. If Game 2 is going to decide a winner with the 4-deep rule, I say let it finish. If you even have the same player win Games 1 and 2 50% of the time, the match is over and takes the same amount of time as it would (or less!) as a Game 3 would.
 
Last edited:
Here in Europe we always played with best 2 of 3 matches, and rarley there are any problems with time. And if the time expires it isn't such a big problem, since you already got to play 45 minutes.

Also got a question about matchplay for the Europeans. The 4-deep rule is implemented, right? That's also another place where I would have a problem. Player 1 wins Game 1 in 30 minutes. 15 minutes left for Game 2. Time is called. Game is tied at 3-3, Player 2 takes his 4th prize to win it. So, now it goes to sudden death? Where Player 2 has an equal chance to win? That doesn't seem right to me. Player 1 won a legitimate FULL Game 1. Now of course the argument here is going to be that Player 2 was going to win Game 2. Well answer me this:
Click to expand...

In that case player 1 would win since he is at 1-0. Sudden death would happen if both players are 1-1, and they got the same amount of prizes remaining.
 
Scizor, you do have the Sudden Death Rule correct. In your scenario it would be 1-1 and single game SD to decide. :(

The same scenario occurs in the top cut too. Sudden Death deciding a long close match.

Our current rules for 2/3 and an insistance that every game has to have a winner/loser creates this increase in Sudden Death deciders.

I'm sure that we can reduce the reliance upon Sudden Death in matchplay. I'd much rather try and fix that problem than the one that we currently face: matches being over with only a few cards drawn by the losing player.

At USA Nationals I would expect every round to have multiple SD matches with 2/3 45 minute rounds. In the masters at USA nats I expect several rounds to have SD matches even with single game 40 minute rounds.

----
@The Phenom: see my comment above upon our current insistance that games have to have a win/loss outcome once four prizes are taken. Scizor's scenario does go to SD.
 
Last edited:
I hate when people just use the term "here in Europe". No, not all of Europe uses best-of-3, so stop making it sound like it.
 
The good European countries do though >.>
Anyway, I do feel that 2 of 3 is very good, but Macheap still ends up donking every now and then. While its FAR better then that lousy gameplay, I still think that No Trainers On First Turn For Either Players is the best solution.
 
Great first post, I really like!

Yeah, there are a lot of interesting suggestions put on the table. I do like Jimmy's the best, even if it does require a ruling from Japan. A lot of the others are interesting, and well worth exploring, but Jimmy's has the advantage of fixing the issue and keeping the style of the game most intact IMO
 
" Your opponent does not have an active Pokemon at the end of their turn."

I like this idea. :thumb: Maybe can set the winning condition to "you only win the game after you draw 6 prizes".
 
Scipio said:
The good European countries do though >.>
Anyway, I do feel that 2 of 3 is very good, but Macheap still ends up donking every now and then. While its FAR better then that lousy gameplay, I still think that No Trainers On First Turn For Either Players is the best solution.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "the good European countries"?
 
Charizard1987 said:
" Your opponent does not have an active Pokemon at the end of their turn."

I like this idea. :thumb: Maybe can set the winning condition to "you only win the game after you draw 6 prizes".
Click to expand...

I don't like this, this gets around bench damage and stuff. The player will just keep the basics in the deck and play one basic after a knock out and such.
 
I don't like this, this gets around bench damage and stuff. The player will just keep the basics in the deck and play one basic after a knock out and such.
Click to expand...

Ok, but what pokemon is fully powered up in one turn (and actually does serious damage) without a bench? The person would still lose by not having anything but an active with 0 energy.
 
I'm not sure I like the 2/3 idea overall. Going through NW regionals showed me that most of the reason
that PTO's can run 364 person tournaments is because they have all 40 minutes in the swiss rounds
to get the battles recorded, and only a handful ending on time to report after time is called. With best
2/3, you'd have a lot more going to time, and the tournaments would drag on a lot longer for each round,
expecially the big ones.

Being an AMU player really makes me like the 'start with 3 starters' idea...i could have upper and downer
material in play, and start with Uxie MT to do mindoff so you can't hit me with deafen or any other damaging
attack the next turn, lol. But this idea gives us the ability to not only create our own deck, but starting battle
style, not unlike chess, where you have a set stradagy going in that you can do 100% of the time, not just
on what you draw at the begining. Do I think the powers that be would make such a radical change to the game,
no, but it is fun to dream about. :smile: (Hey, what if there was a trainer card that just said, "You win." Uhhh, Deafen
lock would be a lot more popular....)

-Jason
:)dark::Colorless20)
 
Wouldn't the optional mulligan increase chances that people would get the donk hand (rare candy + stage 2 + energy)?
 
I'm going to use myself as an example here please don't take this as bragging becuase I'm not trying to.

For the current season my record is 47-5,

3 of my losses are what I consider legit losses they came from good players in good games, 1 was in a Kingdra mirror becuase I prized 2 Baltoy and a 1-1 Cress and while I do feel that the loss was more of a donk, but perhaps I could have gotten out of it by drawing the right prize card or constructed my deck with playing an Azelf. These are all factors I could of controled. My 5 loss was at regionals in the last round of swiss I sat down shelfed up drew my opening hand (a rather strong one) and had two basics a Baltoy and a Uxie. Obivously I started with Baltoy and held the Uxie. We begin he flips over Sablye, real dark game. I didn't get a turn, and this loss really bugs me becuase I don't know if I could have beaten him or not. Was he a better player than me? I will never know. I kind felt like a fighter who wasn't even allowed to step into the ring. This is why I have a problem with donk decks, I'm not saying they are all "autopiolet" decks becuase if you don't get the donk than you have to have some skill to do well with them. But the percentage of the time they do, it takes no skill, you will never know who the better player was.

Oh hey nothing against the Sablye guy, just hateing how the game works sometimes not the player. (I played Kingdra all through out Cities)

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

Prime said:
Wouldn't the optional mulligan increase chances that people would get the donk hand (rare candy + stage 2 + energy)?
Click to expand...

Very good point, and the -1 means very little a quick Uxie will take care of that.

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

Vegeta ss4 said:
I don't like this, this gets around bench damage and stuff. The player will just keep the basics in the deck and play one basic after a knock out and such.
Click to expand...

True and I also thought of the brokeness with BTS. However they couldn't evolve or attach energy and it would be very hard to try and build up a field presence when your only playing down a new pokemon everytime one is Knocked out.
 
Last edited:
Oderus Urungus said:
There actually is t1 kills in both Yugioh and Magic that don't require your opponent to play anything.
Click to expand...


this is very true, and they are much more of a problem in them than they are in Pokemon.

I think maybe we could let rare candy be rotated and bring back pokemon breeder, at least it can't be used T1
 
As the SP cards get more powerful we will start seeing faster SP games. Luxray GL can do 100 damage in the first 2 turns. Infernape 4 is pretty much the same. Even with our current cards Weavile G or Honckrow G can end a game T1. Rotating RC will not stop this trend overall, it would just make stage 2 decks less viable.
 
I think this discussion is very useful and we can find out some suggestion.

One of the things i thought about is to play BEST OF THREE 45 MIN instead of SINGLE MATCH 40 MIN in Swiss.

Many country are doing it since last year and with this year rules (4 prizes to win and 40 minutes for a Single Swiss Match), best of three in 45 mins would be perfect.
We spend 5 minutes more each game to have a more balanced match.
Hypotetical situation:

1) YOU GET DONKED T1. Ok. You can have a second game and choose your opponent to start to prevent another T1 and you have 39 minutes to play and draw 4 prizes. If you do it, you have sudden death, but still you have a chance instead of waiting 40minutes for the other players. If he wants to win, he has to T1 you two times in a row.

2) YOU PLAY A 35-40 MINUTES GAME AND WIN. 5-10 minutes left to play the game, probably your opponent will not draw 4 prizes and the game is yours.

3) YOU PLAY A 30 MINUTES GAME, WIN AND THEN GET DONKED T1. You have still 10 minutes to make your opponent start in order to prevent another T1 and play a 10 minutes game trying to be up in prized.

4) YOU PLAY TWO 20 MINUTES GAME AND YOU ARE 1-1. Ok, if the opponent can win a game as you it's better to go Sudden Death.

I can trust you if you say me that there are situation in which this things can give an advantage to speed decks, but it is the better thing to prevent T1 donks bevause you still have a chance to solve the game.
I think that Magic and Yu-gi too has "best of three" in Swiss.
 
It does seem that a turn 1 rare candy is the biggest culprit for making potential competitive games shorter than expected.

It would seem that an easy fix for the format would be to go to a restriction for both players on turn 1 of trainers. This would prevent the early stage 2 and it would give both players an opportunity to play a supporter to get bench one or more basics.
 
andceo said:
I think that Magic and Yu-gi too has "best of three" in Swiss.
Click to expand...

Yu-gi-oh does, not sure about magic. The other thing about the yu-gi-oh OTK's is if you don't get the OTK in the first couple of turns you will probably lose. Pokemon is different becuase Kingdra stays very consistant throughout the game as does Machamp (depending on the list.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top