This happened to me at my first tourney a few months ago. I had zero experience. I used an item when Gothitelle was in play, but the judge nor my opponent said nothing. My opponent waited 2-3 turns before saying "oh hey, you used an item," and one of the main judges was his dad, so in the end, I was told I would be banned from events if I said anything else and also got a prize penalty. The other guy was just told to watch the playing field. What bullcrap.
Prize Penalty Issue
- Thread starter Ness
- Start date
- Status
NoPoke
Active Member
It is not desirable for family members to adjudicate when a family member is involved but it is allowed.
HYPER EEVEE
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
I have always thought prize penalties were dumb because of the fact that people can use it their advantage (with Scramble, Pow!, etc.). Even though this does not solve the problem Jason has with Durant, I have always thought that the penalty should be that the opponent only needs to draw 5 prizes for a win. This would ensure that the number of prizes do not play as big of a role (making the option of doing something to get a prize penalty a lot less viable), while accomplishing the purpose of the penalty. Since judges are involved in prize penalties it can be simply recorded when a player needs to get down one prize remaining for the win in case of any discrepancies.
On the other hand I do like the idea to search for any card as an option.
On the other hand I do like the idea to search for any card as an option.
Gobbledydook
New Member
How do you determine what category the deck falls into? If my deck contains a Gengar Prime tech, a Vileplume tech, and has dragons, what do I do?
Ask them before the match?
Ness
Member
These intricate solutions where a judge issues a varying penalty depending on the type of deck a player is playing are too complicated and put judges in difficult situations that they are not equipped to understand. Additionally, even comprehending these rules is just an unnecessary thing to tack on to their list of things to know. The solution needs to be simple and universal.
After some thought, I think I have the best solution: Anytime a player is awarded a prize penalty, he or she may instead put the top card of his or her opponent's deck in the Lost Zone.
FAQ
1) Why let a player Lost Zone a card from their opponent's deck over simply drawing a card from their own deck?
While drawing a card will be about roughly of equal use in many games, it may rarely be an option that does not penalize the offending player. For example, picture lategame in a Durant mirror match. Both drawing a prize card and drawing a card from the deck might seem worthless to a player. Adding a card to an opponent's Lost Zone is going to almost never be beneficial to an opponent, especially when the player has an option to draw a prize card as well. The two decks that will most often decline a prize penalty will almost always gain adding the top card of their opponent's deck to the Lost Zone. However, even though they will gain from it, they will rarely gain more than a standard deck would gain from a prize penalty. (Even if a Gengar deck nailed a Pokémon from the top of the deck, this is usually the equivalent of a KO.)
2) Why not give more options then, such as the option to discard the card OR the option to draw a card from the deck?
You want the solution to be as simple as possible. It keeps judges from being overwhelmed, and also avoids delaying the game by presenting the player awarded the penalty with a variety of strategic options.tournaments do occur.
3) Is this really necessary? This rarely seems to be a problem.
While it would have been infrequent in the past, the popularity of Durant means that players who are penalized with prize penalties will now often disrupt game state by making errors and then face no consequences. This problem can become even more troublesome if dishonest players attempt to exploit this flaw intentionally.
After some thought, I think I have the best solution: Anytime a player is awarded a prize penalty, he or she may instead put the top card of his or her opponent's deck in the Lost Zone.
FAQ
1) Why let a player Lost Zone a card from their opponent's deck over simply drawing a card from their own deck?
While drawing a card will be about roughly of equal use in many games, it may rarely be an option that does not penalize the offending player. For example, picture lategame in a Durant mirror match. Both drawing a prize card and drawing a card from the deck might seem worthless to a player. Adding a card to an opponent's Lost Zone is going to almost never be beneficial to an opponent, especially when the player has an option to draw a prize card as well. The two decks that will most often decline a prize penalty will almost always gain adding the top card of their opponent's deck to the Lost Zone. However, even though they will gain from it, they will rarely gain more than a standard deck would gain from a prize penalty. (Even if a Gengar deck nailed a Pokémon from the top of the deck, this is usually the equivalent of a KO.)
2) Why not give more options then, such as the option to discard the card OR the option to draw a card from the deck?
You want the solution to be as simple as possible. It keeps judges from being overwhelmed, and also avoids delaying the game by presenting the player awarded the penalty with a variety of strategic options.tournaments do occur.
3) Is this really necessary? This rarely seems to be a problem.
While it would have been infrequent in the past, the popularity of Durant means that players who are penalized with prize penalties will now often disrupt game state by making errors and then face no consequences. This problem can become even more troublesome if dishonest players attempt to exploit this flaw intentionally.
meganium45
Active Member
Intentional errors are cheating, and are treated entirely differently than the simple "violation".
Drawing extra cards is a warning. Having a judge catch a player during his opponents turn drawing one or more cards can be considered cheating, and lead to penalties ranging from a Game Loss, to DQ, and inquiry by Play!Pokemon.
For those making intentional mistakes, realize that not all judges are lambs, and many of us FULLY understand the game, the rules, and gamesmanship.
Anyone intentionally trying to skirt the rules to get a prize penalty is only going to do it for so long. Play!Pokemon gets lists of all penalties warnings or higher, and they do watch for patterns. I have heard of a warning letter going out for a player who had received nothing but prize penalties or lower.
I feel that this may seem on the surface to be an abusable issue, but in reality, it is not.
These types of "gaming" may play in the sticks once or twice, but once you get to States, Regionals, Nationals and Worlds, where the judging is improved across the board, then I don't see it as a problem.
I understand the premise for this, but simply do not agree with the necessity for change at this time.
Also, when you make an intentional mistake, you are really putting yourself at the mercy of the judge who may go prize penalty, but may go game loss, or DQ depending on how they interpret the player's actions.
Vince
Drawing extra cards is a warning. Having a judge catch a player during his opponents turn drawing one or more cards can be considered cheating, and lead to penalties ranging from a Game Loss, to DQ, and inquiry by Play!Pokemon.
For those making intentional mistakes, realize that not all judges are lambs, and many of us FULLY understand the game, the rules, and gamesmanship.
Anyone intentionally trying to skirt the rules to get a prize penalty is only going to do it for so long. Play!Pokemon gets lists of all penalties warnings or higher, and they do watch for patterns. I have heard of a warning letter going out for a player who had received nothing but prize penalties or lower.
I feel that this may seem on the surface to be an abusable issue, but in reality, it is not.
These types of "gaming" may play in the sticks once or twice, but once you get to States, Regionals, Nationals and Worlds, where the judging is improved across the board, then I don't see it as a problem.
I understand the premise for this, but simply do not agree with the necessity for change at this time.
Also, when you make an intentional mistake, you are really putting yourself at the mercy of the judge who may go prize penalty, but may go game loss, or DQ depending on how they interpret the player's actions.
Vince
ChaosJim
Member
I think Ness's last post hits the nail on the head. Also, these alternate penalties function appropriately in games where we have Durant vs. Durant or LostGar vs. LostGar or even Durant vs. LostGar.
Vince, even if the necessity for such a change doesn't exist at this time, it is possible that the game continues to move in a direction where winning outside prizes and donks continues to matter more and more. I think starting the discussion now is important, so that by the time it truly needs to happen it isn't a completely foreign idea to people. Some people like Jason are at the level where they are thinking beyond what penalty they want, but what they expect the penalty to do. I'm not sure most of the player base is even at that point yet before reading this discussion.
Vince, even if the necessity for such a change doesn't exist at this time, it is possible that the game continues to move in a direction where winning outside prizes and donks continues to matter more and more. I think starting the discussion now is important, so that by the time it truly needs to happen it isn't a completely foreign idea to people. Some people like Jason are at the level where they are thinking beyond what penalty they want, but what they expect the penalty to do. I'm not sure most of the player base is even at that point yet before reading this discussion.
ShuckleLVX
Active Member
The penalties we have are fine, I'm sorry guys. There are some situations where they aren't ideal, but if we start making a different penalty for every "For example, picture lategame in a Durant mirror match," we will need tournament reporters to outline precedents for every case. I, for one, don't want to have to maintain two law libraries.
Ness
Member
They are not fine and I have explained why they are not fine. My proposed solution is extremely simple and extremely practical. Tournament Reporters will not need to outline precedents for anything - it's just one very simple option to prevent exploitation of the rules.
Literally the only thing a Tournament Organizer will need to know is that when a player is awarded a prize penalty he can Lost Zone the top card of his opponent's deck instead. That's it. That's your fix. The end.
What you are overlooking is that it is irrelevant whether or not someone is abusing these rules intentionally or not. Almost every error a player makes that disrupts game state is actually unintentional. Whether or not someone is intentionally drawing or revealing extra cards from their deck makes absolutely no difference in the advantage they gain from it. If the offending player is playing against a Gengar or Durant deck, these errors are often met with no consequence. This is because an opponent playing Durant or Gengar will usually not benefit from drawing a prize. Everything else you said is correct, but you are failing to realize that a player's intent is irrelevant. The reason some of you are not understanding the magnitude of this problem is because it so rarely occurred in the past. Because we now have a popular deck that wins without drawing prize cards, it will and already is becoming a legitimate problem.
Last edited:
meganium45
Active Member
Your whole premise of your argument is to protect against the intentional abuse of the rules in order to gain, at worst, a meaningless prize penalty (in the matchup).
A player's intent is irrelevant? Really? Boy you are showing some naive thinking here. Obviously have not been a part of any high level judge and penalty discussions, and don't think judges discuss and think these issues completely through. Ness, hate to tell you, but you are wrong.
What I am stating is that in intentionally abusing the rules, players risk putting their game at the discretion of a judge who may actually see what is happening, and escalate the penalty accordingly.
I don't think that there is any deck, once it becomes popular, that should have a "specialized" penalty issued just to benefit that particular deck. The prize penalty may not help the durant deck, but it certainly does not hurt it (getting an extra resource from your prizes to your deck). It may not help out the durant deck as much as it helps out a deck that focuses on taking prizes to win, but your statement that it does not help is an understatement.
Your initial suggestion of multiple cards tossed to the lost zone or discard was certainly over the top.
I note that this argument did not come out during the Lost Zone Gengar era, at least to this extent.
Playing Durant Ness?
For what it is worth, I like the discussion, even if I disagree with the reccomendation. Not because Play!Pokemon would have to change, but for the reasons I have discussed above.
Vince
A player's intent is irrelevant? Really? Boy you are showing some naive thinking here. Obviously have not been a part of any high level judge and penalty discussions, and don't think judges discuss and think these issues completely through. Ness, hate to tell you, but you are wrong.
What I am stating is that in intentionally abusing the rules, players risk putting their game at the discretion of a judge who may actually see what is happening, and escalate the penalty accordingly.
I don't think that there is any deck, once it becomes popular, that should have a "specialized" penalty issued just to benefit that particular deck. The prize penalty may not help the durant deck, but it certainly does not hurt it (getting an extra resource from your prizes to your deck). It may not help out the durant deck as much as it helps out a deck that focuses on taking prizes to win, but your statement that it does not help is an understatement.
Your initial suggestion of multiple cards tossed to the lost zone or discard was certainly over the top.
I note that this argument did not come out during the Lost Zone Gengar era, at least to this extent.
Playing Durant Ness?
For what it is worth, I like the discussion, even if I disagree with the reccomendation. Not because Play!Pokemon would have to change, but for the reasons I have discussed above.
Vince
ChaosJim
Member
I feel like Ness also makes the point that when players unintentionally gain an advantage (ie drawing extra cards), the player seeking to win via decking or lost zone is often well motivated to not draw the prize, eliminating any 'real' penalty.
Giving your opponent access to Twins or Black Belt while playing Durant is an intense disadvantage. Also, as Ness stated at some point, drawing one less card off of every N for the remainder of the game is a big disadvantage. Next set, this gets worse with Shaymin EX.
As someone who had a great states run with LostGar, I often did switch gears and win by prizes. That would've been even EASIER given a prize penalty. Many, if not most, Durant decks cap out at 30 damage (outside Rotom, who can be played around). That is part of why this wasn't an issue. Also, LostGar was difficult enough to play that success with it wasn't really accessible to a large part of the community. With Durant being 4 uncommons, maybe only even 1 rare in the entire deck (again, Rotom), it is possibly the competitve deck most accessible to new players of all time (debate for different thread). Sure, Ness would probably like a meaningful penalty when someone gets nervous and screws up against him. In other situations, as it is now, less experienced players taking the penalty might be inadvertently throwing the game away. Yes, it will be their misplay, but they only were put in that position because their opponent gained an unfair advantage (intentionally or not).
Diaz
New Member
That's a Straw Man argument. I believe, instead, Jason is looking to ensure violations of the rules, that both intentional and unintentional, are properly penalized.
I think emphasizing intent doesn't help your argument, Vince, because whether intentional or not, an unfair advantage can be gained by a player breaking the rules, and the current system doesn't properly account for this in all situations.
I think that is ad hominem tu quoque. Jason may have started out with an over the top idea, but it has developed into something quite reasonable.
Just to note: Playing a Ross deck during BR's, I had to turn down a prize penalty. It was on the second turn and would not have been beneficial to me. This topic applies to more than just two decks.
(Btw, I'm not really adamant either way, I just don't get the opportunity to argue with a lawyer very much and couldn't resist.)
Ness
Member
These penalties are not designed to benefit any deck more or less than one another, nor should they. They are simply designed to maintain the fairness and integrity of the game. Because there is more than one way to win in Pokémon, and a certain deck's entire strategy may be devoted to that strategy, it is not fair to that deck to only have prize-penalties for the stuff between warnings & game losses.
If a penalty does not help the Durant player, the opponent has received no ramification for gaining an unfair advantage by making a mistake. And yes, the prize penalty absolutely can hurt - especially early game when it can remove your option to Twins. When it comes to these kind of arguments, you must rely on the experience, knowledge & judgment of experienced competitive players.
It actually isn't and I'll explain my thought process. I am trying to on average replicate the gain from a prize penalty. Even with my current suggestion of lost zoning one card, it is often a marginal gain compared to what a player would typically gain from drawing a prize. I only reverted back to one card because
A) It is simpler.
B) It is enough to consistently prevent exploitation of a rules loophole.
meganium45
Active Member
And Ness, with all due respect, I am not taking this argument lightly, as it effects well more than one deck or one situation.
There have been NUMEROUS decks and cards that have not had taking a prize be advantageous over the years, which have been effectively brought out in this thread.
We have to look and see what the tipping point is as to whether or not the situation as it currently sits is worthy of change. Is there a rampant problem that is happening that needs to be addressed (as Sableye was last year with the Black and White Rules addition), or are we chasing a problem that turns out to me a non-issue, or only very situational (such as the worry that Steelix would ruin the format when Neo Genesis was released).
The change warranted here happens on a RARE circumstance, and has not been seen as a problem before in a similar circumstance.
I am just not convinced that the ruling change is beneficial to the game as a whole.
Once again, just the opinion of one judge, but one judge who has judged at the highest levels, and been a part of discussions on rule changes and format changes as needed over the years.
Thanks Diaz, debate away. You are allowed to be wrong and we still allow you to debate (LOL). The crowd thanks you for the links attached to the latin phrases. They certainly assist in the understanding for the masses. Further, they still let me debate!
Vince
There have been NUMEROUS decks and cards that have not had taking a prize be advantageous over the years, which have been effectively brought out in this thread.
We have to look and see what the tipping point is as to whether or not the situation as it currently sits is worthy of change. Is there a rampant problem that is happening that needs to be addressed (as Sableye was last year with the Black and White Rules addition), or are we chasing a problem that turns out to me a non-issue, or only very situational (such as the worry that Steelix would ruin the format when Neo Genesis was released).
The change warranted here happens on a RARE circumstance, and has not been seen as a problem before in a similar circumstance.
I am just not convinced that the ruling change is beneficial to the game as a whole.
Once again, just the opinion of one judge, but one judge who has judged at the highest levels, and been a part of discussions on rule changes and format changes as needed over the years.
Thanks Diaz, debate away. You are allowed to be wrong and we still allow you to debate (LOL). The crowd thanks you for the links attached to the latin phrases. They certainly assist in the understanding for the masses. Further, they still let me debate!
Vince
Ness
Member
This idea that a prize penalty not benefiting a player is rare is untrue. As an avid, competitive player, I assure you that the situation where Durant gains nothing from drawing a prize penalty is not rare. Regardless, let's say these situations were rare. Why even have a rules loophole when the solution is so simple?
The problem is real. The potential for further abuse is there. The solution is simple.
The problem is real. The potential for further abuse is there. The solution is simple.
meganium45
Active Member
And we can agree to disagree.
The problem may be perceived as real by some, but may not be significant enough for action which involves the changing of a basic rule.
Second, I believe I have addressed the "abuses" issue, and frankly do not see it. No one who has any sense "goes after" getting a prize penalty. The risk is too great for the reward.
Third, the solution is not simple. To change the penalty structure of an international game, where the penalty structure is in place is anything but simple.
Vince
The problem may be perceived as real by some, but may not be significant enough for action which involves the changing of a basic rule.
Second, I believe I have addressed the "abuses" issue, and frankly do not see it. No one who has any sense "goes after" getting a prize penalty. The risk is too great for the reward.
Third, the solution is not simple. To change the penalty structure of an international game, where the penalty structure is in place is anything but simple.
Vince
Question about the Prize Penalty itself.
Can Prize Penalties occur midgame?
and, if so, are Prize Penalties taken into consideration at random or does the player taking the prize choose?
The reason I ask is that in the specific case of Durant, going the other way now as far as side of the table, is that an Alph Lithograph be played and the player simply chooses 1/6 cards he/she knows they have access to.
The other thing is that, hey- it could be worse. They could just upgrade the penalty to a game loss. Same outcome, essentially, and saves the headache.
Can Prize Penalties occur midgame?
and, if so, are Prize Penalties taken into consideration at random or does the player taking the prize choose?
The reason I ask is that in the specific case of Durant, going the other way now as far as side of the table, is that an Alph Lithograph be played and the player simply chooses 1/6 cards he/she knows they have access to.
The other thing is that, hey- it could be worse. They could just upgrade the penalty to a game loss. Same outcome, essentially, and saves the headache.
- Status