RULES UPDATE: Game two tie breaker changed. +3 Clarified

Discussion in 'TCG News & Gossip Discussion' started by NoPoke, Oct 24, 2010.

8 league13 468 60
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    The tournament rules have been updated.

    If you are playing game two of match play then after time is called and the +3 turns have expired the winner of game two is decided by prize difference same as it is now.

    The change is that the requirement in game two to take more than half the prizes has been removed.

    ref sec 22.3 GAME 2


    The +3 turns have been clarified.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2010
  2. wiem0014

    wiem0014 New Member

    Is this true? Link to the updated rules?
  3. DarthPika

    DarthPika New Member

    Good... I always hated stuff with how many prizes counts for a "complete" game. Potentially cost me a states with that dumb rule. :/

    I suppose there's a new way to win now. DPL... just keep adding prizes to their pile, and even though you never take a prize, you'll win by having less prizes than them when time is called. :p (not that I would ever dare use this in a real tourney)
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2010
  4. Pajamas

    Pajamas <a href="
    This is bad news for Lost World decks. Oh, wait...
  5. TheDarkTwins

    TheDarkTwins Active Member

    I'm sorry, but that wording is confusing me a bit. I'm not sure I understand completely the idea that it is trying to get across.

    Is it saying that it doesn't matter what prize count is but whoever is ahead after the +3 is the winner of Game 2 even if it is 1-0 in prizes taken?

  6. Naki Feralkin

    Naki Feralkin New Member

    I think in other words, they're saying that you don't need to take 4 prize cards in game two for the game to be complete anymore.
  7. Lawman

    Lawman Active Member

    Yes, it is the person with the least number of prizes remaining that will win in that instance. No more at least 4 prize cards taken by 1 player (for a 60 card deck)

  8. PokeDad

    PokeDad Forum Moderator

    Good to know. Thanks for posting.
  9. Yoshi-

    Yoshi- New Member

    I hope you got this wrong, this is a MAJOR CHANGE and IMO this kills non sp/donk decks.
    I can win game one and then my opponent just gets the first price because his deck is faster and wins?!
  10. Nemes

    Nemes Member

    Not taking into account all the implications about gameplay (I'm sure someone else would do it better than me), I must say this "old-back-to-new" rule completely fails at logic.

    What was the problem with the "more than 50%" part? And even if there was one, how going back to an even worse rule can be considered as an acceptable solution?

    Please enlighten me.
  11. TheDarkTwins

    TheDarkTwins Active Member

    I'm tossed up on this. It is one of those things that seems a little unfair to the player winning a long Game 1. I never liked the 50%. I felt some games that weren't 50% still had enough happen that they should have counted.

    The bigger issue is the following to me. This rule encourages stalling. I mean if I lost G1 and I know we don't have a long time for G2, but take the first prize what is stopping me from playing so that my opponent can't regain the lead. I know there are prevent measures to stop this, but not all judges view stalling as the same thing and therefore won't call it.

    On a side note, I think if a player losing (in a normal game) or in overall in top cut, that stalling becomes a tiny bit less of an issue because they need to think more to comeback and it only benefits the other player. However that's something for another thread. I'm just saying due to the fact that G2 being decided by anyone who has a lead can encourage this. However, this was how the rule was before and I didn't really have any issue with it then, but then against I didn't play against SP non-stop.

  12. Naki Feralkin

    Naki Feralkin New Member

    ^ I've had a couple of Top cut games that were in my favor in round 2 when time was called when this rule was first implemented without enough prizes being taken. I can see where it can benefit and cannot benefit at the same time.

    In this format, I'm uncertain. SP decks can easily turn the tide if they lost a close game 1. This now doesn't force them to rush which is a little tedious, knowing how SP works.
  13. vanderbilt_grad

    vanderbilt_grad New Member

    IMHO ... this is a change that had to be made with Dialga & Palkia Legend in format.
  14. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    Why "had" to be made? DPL could require a change to the tournament rules but did not require the concept of a "significant" game to be abandoned. For example POP could have switched the 50% count from prizes taken to prizes remaining: fewer than half the starting prize count remaining for a "significant game".

    However that is moot as that wasn't what was done.
  15. Freddy K.

    Freddy K. New Member

    Useful, thanks for that Ian. I'll let the Midlands players know.
  16. TheDarkTwins

    TheDarkTwins Active Member

    I don't think this is why the changed it. There haven't been many decks/cards that have needed a floor rule changed. GG forced Pokemon to extend time limits to 40 minutes. As soon as it got rotated we went back to 30 but with an added twist. I think this is more of they tried out the 50% rule and maybe the result that they wanted wasn't what they desired so they decided to change it.

  17. Scipio

    Scipio New Member

    Thank you for officially MURDERING spread decks.

    Bloody hell -.-
  18. Magnechu

    Magnechu Active Member

    SP decks become that much more powerful with this change.
  19. Cyrus

    Cyrus Iron Chef - Master Emeritus

    So if Pakia/Dialga LEGEND gives the opponent two new prize cards when time is called in game 2, and then the opponent proceeds to draw a single prize the next turn (say via Dragon Rush on the bench), the opponent wins even though he's behind in prizes by that point? It does say "The player drawing the next Prize card wins" after all...

    It seems like the way it's worded right now, the tied-at-time solution seems to go against the spirit of "fewest Prize cards remaining." This should be changed ASAP to accommodate for Palkia/Dialga, or else you'll have ridiculous situations like the above.

    What Sentence two SHOULD be changed to say is this:
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2010


    I kinda like this rule and kinda hate it at the same time-

    1). Like it because last year in TC, my game 2 was ended on time and i was up 3-2 in prizes, but lost game 1 :(

    2). Hate it because it just gives SPs another advantage, like they didn't have enough already.

    3). DPL IMHO won't impact the game a lot because it is slow, but i think that they need to change the ruling for the above situation, also seems to be kinda stupid to not test this @ Spring BR's like they did w/ 30+3 turns thing, i just think that they should've waited for later in the season or even next season.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page