How would Pokemon TCG be like if you draw a prize when your pokemon gets knocked out?

[signofzeta]

Pokemon TCG is different in a way that when you are attacked, and your opponent scores, the opponent draws a prize card.

In MTG, when your opponent "scores", you lose life.

In YGO, when your opponent "scores", you lose life points.

In WoW TCG, when your opponent "scores", your hero takes permanent damage.

In Cardfight Vanguard, when your opponent "scores", you put cards in the damage zone.

In Kaijudo, when your opponent "scores", you remove a shield.

When any of these hit zero, or in the case of Cardfight Vanguard, maximum, which is typically 6, you lose the game, or in the case of Pokemon TCG, when your prizes hit zero, you win the game.



So I ask you, how would pokemon TCG be different if you drew the prize when your pokemon gets knocked out, instead of your opponent drawing the prize, and when you have no prizes, you lose?


Ok. Separate question. How would you design a 3+ player free for all battle, because it sure is impossible with the current rules.

More importantly, why don't the games have 4 player free for all battles?

How do you view being victorious in a one on one match in the video games? You knocking out 6 of your opponent's pokemon, or you knocking all of your opponent's pokemon? Currently in the TCG, it feels like you knock out 6 of your opponent's pokemon, but when your opponent draws prizes instead of you, it feels like your opponent is losing pokemon one by one, if you know what I mean.

 

[Otaku]

Wow, signofzeta, you made a topic I can sink my teeth into while largely agreeing with you!

Due to the free online play (that I can usually get to work on my computer) I've been dabbling with Kaijudo. I would very much prefer that the "Prize" mechanic of the TCG be scrapped because it does not work very well. After 15 years of play, it hasn't gotten better. It may have been intended as a balancing mechanism (cards could be "Prized") but it mostly seems to add an unneeded, additional measure of luck to the game. It isn't even that "simple" either; forgetting to lay out Prizes is a "thing" even for we older, experienced players (let alone the newer or younger ones).

If the choice is between a player getting a card when they are doing what they would be to win the game anyway (most of the time) or the player that just was moved a step closer to losing getting a card... I'd prefer the latter.

I've not played Vanguard, but on my own I came to a similar idea; what if when a Pokémon was KOed, it was placed in a separate KO zone? Once six Pokémon are in that Zone, you lose! This wouldn't be compatible with Pokémon-EX (at least without tweaking), but it could help the game feel closer to the source material while also providing an interesting balancing agent between Stages; in my example an Evolution being KOed could select any Pokémon card that is a "part" of it to meet that requirement, with the rest of the cards going to the discard. A Basic? No choice. Used Rare Candy? One less choice.

Just keeping track via "counters" (hey, it is good enough for damage, isn't it?) also works for me. I think the game could be better if this was changed, but I have not done any testing to prove it (so it might make things worse). Things that would be different is right now, as stated you have luck determining what cards go into your Prizes. Just allowing players to pick their Prizes instead of randomly taking them off the top of the deck could be interesting... but perhaps the "luck" is supposed to balance things out?

As for multiplayer, I need to type them up but I've got printed out instructions for the old 2-player versus 2-player team battles. For a free-for-all, probably have to use the XY rules. Another option is something I had hoped they would do; instead of having to mulligan for no Pokémon in hand, make it for having one or none. This way everyone has to have two Pokémon to start. Some would consider the increased mulligans for low Basic counts good, some would consider it bad.

 

[signofzeta]

Wow, signofzeta, you made a topic I can sink my teeth into while largely agreeing with you!

Due to the free online play (that I can usually get to work on my computer) I've been dabbling with Kaijudo. I would very much prefer that the "Prize" mechanic of the TCG be scrapped because it does not work very well. After 15 years of play, it hasn't gotten better. It may have been intended as a balancing mechanism (cards could be "Prized") but it mostly seems to add an unneeded, additional measure of luck to the game. It isn't even that "simple" either; forgetting to lay out Prizes is a "thing" even for we older, experienced players (let alone the newer or younger ones).

If the choice is between a player getting a card when they are doing what they would be to win the game anyway (most of the time) or the player that just was moved a step closer to losing getting a card... I'd prefer the latter.

I've not played Vanguard, but on my own I came to a similar idea; what if when a Pokémon was KOed, it was placed in a separate KO zone? Once six Pokémon are in that Zone, you lose! This wouldn't be compatible with Pokémon-EX (at least without tweaking), but it could help the game feel closer to the source material while also providing an interesting balancing agent between Stages; in my example an Evolution being KOed could select any Pokémon card that is a "part" of it to meet that requirement, with the rest of the cards going to the discard. A Basic? No choice. Used Rare Candy? One less choice.

Just keeping track via "counters" (hey, it is good enough for damage, isn't it?) also works for me. I think the game could be better if this was changed, but I have not done any testing to prove it (so it might make things worse). Things that would be different is right now, as stated you have luck determining what cards go into your Prizes. Just allowing players to pick their Prizes instead of randomly taking them off the top of the deck could be interesting... but perhaps the "luck" is supposed to balance things out?

As for multiplayer, I need to type them up but I've got printed out instructions for the old 2-player versus 2-player team battles. For a free-for-all, probably have to use the XY rules. Another option is something I had hoped they would do; instead of having to mulligan for no Pokémon in hand, make it for having one or none. This way everyone has to have two Pokémon to start. Some would consider the increased mulligans for low Basic counts good, some would consider it bad.

They have unofficial rules for the 2 vs 2 team battles, but you and your opponent have half as many prizes to start with, meaning your entire team would have 6, which I think could be better if you and your teammate had 4 or maybe 5 prizes to start with instead, totalling your team prize count to 8 or 10. Heck, you can even go full out on each side and go 12 prizes.

KO zone or just plain counting up, or down from 6 is a great idea as well.

The current way Pokemon TCG handles prizes ensures that multiplayer free for all, which I do hope end up in the video games some day, is impossible, unless when you are the only one remaining, and like that feeling of being picked last in gym, or should I call it, the person who is weak, the loser etc. I'd rather have it so that when you are last, you are the winner, that is, last man standing.

From the multiplayer games I played, with 3+ player, If one person won, and everybody else lost, that is, in the case of Pokemon TCG, one person draws all prizes, everybody else won't feel like playing for second place. In a game like MTG, YGO, Cardfight Vanguard, and Kaijudo, on the other hand, when you win, you have to make sure everybody else loses first, meaning people will keep playing until the last person is left.


In the tournament formats, there is also the 2 vs 2, that is you put 2 pokemon as active pokemon instead, and the 30 card format. Imagine combining the team and the 2 vs 2 formats together? Perhaps a format inspired by the 3 vs 3 and rotation battles? If 3 vs 3 or rotation was a format, deck size would have to increase to 80 or 100 cards, so the deck doesn't deck out too quickly.

Currently the prize mechanism is so restricting to what the game can become, meaning you can only play it one or two ways, free for all multiplayer not being one of them.

Man, don't you just hate it when you have 2 friends over, and you want to play Pokemon TCG, but due to the nature of the game, you end up playing scrabble instead?

I probably wouldn't have come up with the idea of you drawing prizes, when your pokemon was knocked out, if it weren't for Kaijudo and Cardfight Vanguard though, and the fact that I was thinking about 3 player free for all, and realize it was impossible with current rules.

 

[Mekkah]

I've had some minor experimenting with multiplayer games and the reverse prize system. Stuff that happens:
- N becomes weird
- Ganging up on one person is promoted to a great extent
- Set-up decks get hampered to a great extent
- You need to make a lot of cards pick a player you're using them on to make them not overpowered. e.g. when playing Colress, you have to pick another player and add their bench to yours to get your number of cards drawn, rather than just draw one for each bench Pokemon on play. When using Attack Command, you count just the bench of the player you're attacking.
- You can do neat things like Catcher one player's bench sitter, and then take a KO on the other player.

 

[signofzeta]

I've had some minor experimenting with multiplayer games and the reverse prize system. Stuff that happens:
- N becomes weird
- Ganging up on one person is promoted to a great extent
- Set-up decks get hampered to a great extent
- You need to make a lot of cards pick a player you're using them on to make them not overpowered. e.g. when playing Colress, you have to pick another player and add their bench to yours to get your number of cards drawn, rather than just draw one for each bench Pokemon on play. When using Attack Command, you count just the bench of the player you're attacking.
- You can do neat things like Catcher one player's bench sitter, and then take a KO on the other player.

That does kind of stink that cards are designed so the reverse prize system doesn't work, and therefore multiplayer doesn't work. Even in Magic and Yugioh, there is going to be ganging up and all that stuff.

For colress, I guess you could pick the opponent, or make a rule that that the opponent it describes is the player to your right, or add coin flips, Heads = player to your left, and Tails = player to your right. Let's say the player to your right is eliminated, because that player drew the last prize, then the player to your right will be the one next over, if playing a 4 player or 5 player game.

For N, woah boy, that's a tough one. Again, I guess the heads tails player to your left/right thing would also do. In this case when things reference your prizes, it now references your opponent's prize, depending on coin flip.

N could also be changed so that you draw cards = to the prizes already taken, rather than prizes remaining.

It kind of sucks that the game is like it is, and there is no way to change 15 years of history. It's a shame too, because Pokemon TCG is the only game where you can't play multiplayer free for all. There are probably other TCG's out there, but they are so unpopular that nobody knows enough about it to even have a 3+ free for all battle.

It isn't to say that the reverse prize system should only be implemented for multiplayer matches only, and a box set can be released containing a deck geared for multiplayer play. Just take that as a new format. If I were to make such a product, it would be like the blaziken vs Gardivoir box set that they used to release. They have the 60 card main deck, and 15 card side deck. The main deck is for one on one play. The side deck would contain cards that were meant for multiplayer play, and if you want to play multiplayer, you switch out the cards in the main deck for some cards in the side deck.

 

[Otaku]

signofzeta: I don't have it handy to tell you now, but I might have a copy of the older Team Multiplayer rules instead of the revised rules. I really don't remember, just that it is sitting in this huge pile of "to do" work that has to wait until I get some job related stuff done this weekend/early this coming week.

• The original (WotC) TMP was a full six Pokémon/six Prizes for each player.
• Cards that said "all players" meant all players
• When a card refers to "you", "your Pokémon", etc. you can elect to play it on yourself, your Pokémon, etc. or your teammate, teammate's Pokémon, etc.
• When a card referts to "your opponent", "your opponent's Pokémon", etc. you select one opponent, opponent's Pokémon, etc.

This added a lot of strategy to the game as you could help your teammate quite a bit; for example first turn it was not uncommon to play a search card for your teammate to ensure they wouldn't be donked.

I'll have to check, but one of the things I remember testing (don't know if anything came of it - this was originally something the old "Professor List" under WotC discussed) was that a player that had been knocked out of the game could get back in if his or her teammate played a card that corrected the issue. So if your opponent was Benched Out or Decked Out, you could revive them. It made ganging up on the weaker player a bit risky.

 

[Articjedi]

You would need to errata all of the "prize count matters" cards to reflect prizes your opponent has drawn instead of how many you've taken.

 

[LunarWolf21]

This is something I've always thought should've been the real rules, but changing it now would be difficult and not really worth it. Maybe as an alternate format. It sure is fun to play this with friends.

 

[Otaku]

This is something I've always thought should've been the real rules, but changing it now would be difficult and not really worth it. Maybe as an alternate format. It sure is fun to play this with friends.

Are you sure about that?

So many rules have been changed over the years for this game, why is this one the exception? Or do you believe the rules ought never to have been changed at all? That said I can't say I completely disagree; I believe that changing the rules is a measure of last resort. I also however believe that the way Prizes work has always been a problem and thus does need to change.