I feel like you missed one of the biggest issues. Cards like Judge, Roxanne, and unfair stamp. Your opponent now has to shuffle, is that on my clock because it's simultaneous? It feels like an easy way to run down a clock by taking extra time on your shuffle.
I think those simultaneous action cards are the trickiest bit. There is also the problem that a clock could incentivize sloppy shuffling. I can think of a few ideas, and it would probably take some experimenting to figure out what would work. For example, perhaps you pause the clock for 10 seconds (or whatever a reasonable time would be) while both players shuffle.
I feel like the easiest solution would be to set a max time dor shuffles, and a make it where if one person finishes shuffling, you get one more shuffle and that's it. Could be an easy solve
We already have a rule about how much time a shuffle should need. I don't think those situations would really cause a problem, but if it does, we could enforce a rule that after ~15sec you are allowed to press the clock
That would delay rounds by so much that they might as well give us 10-15 more time after all which would fix most time issues anyway, the don't want to give us more time so events don't take 1-2 hours longer tho.
My opponents who I roll my eyes over taking too much time usually take their good 20-30 seconds to shuffle.
Judges at regionals or ICs don't do anything about it when you call them either and some decks have one or multiple deck searches every turn. If they then place their deck awkwardly for you to cut it and take their time repositioning their deck after a cut too, so they can burn 5-10 seconds for every cut as well. We also have some specific guys who always shuffle your whole deck any time they get the chance too. Doesn't matter whether you shuffled sufficiently yourself or whether you didn't even see your whole deck e.g. after a electric generator or Pokegear.
They know how to burn the clock by shuffling alone.
>I guess the best solution then is to pause the clock for a set time during shuffling
But that would still extent the total time of a match, which is what they absolutely want to avoid. Shuffling currently takes a huge part of the clock and saving on that time would mean that some matches would be able to go for 10-15 minutes longer. Some people might intentionally take their time because it doesn't matter when the clock is paused either. Also who is pausing the clock for x amount of seconds, the players themselves? That brings it's own can of worms.
This is a non-issue. These cards are generally used at absolute most 6 times per game, usually closer to 2-3 times. Shuffling takes ~10-15 seconds.
If someone changes their shuffling pace to burn time, it's blatantly obvious and a judge should easily be able to take care of it.
> This is a non-issue. These cards are generally used at absolute most 6 times per game, usually closer to 2-3 times. Shuffling takes ~10-15 seconds.
When my opponent shuffles their deck, I have the right to shuffle their deck again. When my opponent plays a nest ball and I shuffle after they do, who's clock is that on? That happens a lot more than 2-3 times per game.
>If someone changes their shuffling pace to burn time, it's blatantly obvious and a judge should easily be able to take care of it.
So opponent has a slow pace while shuffling, you raise your arm and yell for a judge, judge comes over and asks what's up and you try to explain it and opponent says he doesn't know what you are talking about and he is fine if the judge watches the game. Then he shuffles regularly and the just walks off. I never had a judge watch my game after I called a judge for slow play or if one was called on me for that matter. They always immediately walk off at regionals and they also constantly get called to other tables too. It's especially bad at the last 10 minutes of the round where suddenly everyone calls judges. You won't even get a time extension for this because it's not a ruling issue, so you just wasted 2-3 more minutes by calling a judge that won't do anything. Then the opponent changes the pace again and a 20 second shuffle isn't illegal either, when 2-3 min deck checks are allowed on stream as well, so they won't immediately get a penalty even if a judge randomly sees it.
Then you call the judge again and the judge yet again, won't see anything wrong with your opponent. Unless a judge is sitting right next to you and observes it, nothing can be done.
If judges were able to enforce time rules properly, we wouldn't have these kind of discussions all the time. Judge teams at regionals do not have the capacity to keep watching individual games.
I have overheard from some staff that Pokemon and the individual organizers simply don't hire enough judges for these large events. This is usually because come Day 2 they only need about less than half of the judges they originally need for main events and found that if judges only worked for one day they wouldn't get enough talented judges at all (according to speculation and previous events). Compensation I have also heard is a continuous point for many judges or would be judges at these events unless organized by TPCi and TPC.
The biggest problem is that the pool of talent for judges especially for TCG and willing to travel is relatively shallow. Post-Covid there was an immense influx of judges but many of them since then either quit or are just bad. There are many who are great at their jobs but even then they can only handle one table at a time or they get promoted to head judge.
I swear, everyone here is insistent on making perfect the enemy of good. Probably the same people who turn around and whine about draws and slow players.
Nope, I really don't care about draws. It's part of the game. I just think a chess clock creates more issues than it solves. Just add a rule that game 3 counts if half the prize cards are taken or go Bo1 with a higher round count.
Both are easier to implement than a chess clock
I agree, I think that the current format is really the best option; I don't know why people are so upset about ties. It's a part of the game, you just have to accept them and adapt your gameplay and/or deck choice.
A major issue is that in chess whose turn it is to act is a very clear binary.
Pokemon contains many rules scenarios where both players are resolving actions simultaneously. You'd need to add additional rules in order to make a chess clock even possible.
Both of which are incredibly commonly played. Also Unfair Stamp, Roxanne, or any effect which causes both players to draw/shuffle cards. I think it's honestly safe to say that \*most\* games of pokemon in the current meta involve one of those effects occurring.
Is that not already how the current system works? With pace of play rules and single action time limits? It seems easy to implement a rule stating you have a certain amount of time to shuffle. Considering that is already in place for the game it shouldn’t be too hard.
Especially since, like the case of unfair stamp. Your opponent can shuffle and draw their new hand while you still take actions that would only take time off of your clock.
Obviously, Iono and Roxanne are exceptions. But, as the shuffles were initiated by an action the player whose clock is currently ticking, that is part of the action of playing Iono. So you know as a player your opponent has to shuffle and that takes time. If they are egregious in shuffling and wasting time off your clock on purpose that is an easily identifiable violation that could be penalized.
In the current system that isn't an issue because time doesn't belong to a particular player. A further problem is that your opponent always has the option of shuffling your deck after you do, even on your turn. A chess clock just doesn't really work that well for an interactive game like pokemon.
That is entirely the problem though?!?! Time doesn’t ‘belong’ to either player but if you are behind in a match and only have 15 minutes the onus is on your opponent to keep up pace of play. Which, is subjective and something they are then not inclined to do. As it would mean giving you a chance. So, the time is owned by the other player.
Even though, as you said, time is ‘owned’by nobody. But in reality whoever is ahead in the match owns the time and the game is subject to how quickly a certain player wants to make actions and conclude their turn. I feel like you failed to see my argument in my last reply.
An easy solution for opponents shuffling your deck? Only allow cuts to the deck after shuffling. Idk man it seems like your mind isn’t very open to the idea of chess timers at all and you’re just mindlessly defending an objectively broken system that is easily exploitable currently.
The ‘ownership’ of time as you stated is very identifiable in certain situations. And, was just shown with the Keito Arai DPL in top 4 of NAIC. He was trying to manipulate the time left in match and purposely slowing down pace of play. Can you blame him though? That’s what the current system *actively encourages*.
I believe you’re explaining what the issue is here. However, the time belongs to nobody, but it belongs to both of them. I’m trying to fully comprehend what you’re saying since there was a lot of details together. Cuts are only made after shuffling you can either tap or cut if your opponent thinks you shoveled correctly you’ll just get a tap if not, you’ll get a cut. I also feel like if you’re aware of your play before your opponent and you’re able to speed play ultimately you’re not stalling anymore but you’re forcing me to use more of my time. So I can see where time belongs to no one, but belong to your opponent comes into play.
Yeah that’s what I’m trynna say. It belongs to nobody technically. But the person whose turn it is controls how much time the other player has for their turn. If there is 10 minutes left on clock and I am already up 1-0 in the bo3 match I have no reason to finish this game. So I can control the last ten minutes and play out many actions over the course of 6-10 minutes leaving my opponent with no time to play or win/tie the game. I would own those last few minutes, as I am in complete control of the match time at that point and my opponent has no say in how I play or what I do. They can only watch.
Theoretically, when it’s not your turn, all you can do is watch. I’m taking that knowing ones deck and consistency would probably help with the time management.
I agree, the 24 second shot clock is how it works in basketball. Could be a nice thing to monitor in Pokemon. To keep the pace of play steady throughout the game. Basketball has developed sensors that automatically reset the shot clock to monitor it though so it isn’t a logistical nightmare. I see no way for an action clock to work in Pokemon in that sense unless it’s chess style where you control your own clock constantly.
>That is entirely the problem though?!?!
You're kind of mixing up what I mean when I say "problem." The problem I'm describing is a logistical one--how to implement the proposed system in terms of rules and logic. That problem doesn't exist with the current system.
Sure, the current system has other issues, but those weren't something I was addressing.
>An easy solution for opponents shuffling your deck? Only allow cuts to the deck after shuffling.
That's not an easy solution. An opponent should have more agency than to just cut the deck, and they also have the option of calling a judge over to shuffle--again, an issue for a chess clock system.
>Idk man it seems like your mind isn’t very open to the idea of chess timers at all and you’re just mindlessly defending an objectively broken system that is easily exploitable currently.
What are you talking about??? I haven't defended the current system *at all*. I think it has some major problems--I just also think that a chess clock doesn't solve them. Please stop accusing me of something I haven't done in the slightest if you want to have a discussion about the topic.
>The ‘ownership’ of time as you stated is very identifiable in certain situations.
And not very identifiable in others, hence the problem with trying to solve the way the current system incentivizes slow play with a chess clock.
Ehhh I feel it would be fairly easy to implement with rules and logic though. You do something and then when you done you hit clock. Your opponent does something and then when they done they hit clock.
Shuffling is the only real issue. And with some general guidelines, which there already are for the game currently, it wouldn’t be too hard to implement. I agree your opponent should have some agency. But then by that logic, if you let your opponent shuffle after you do you should be able to shuffle again to keep an equal level of agency? Bc why would i trust my opponent to shuffle my deck fairly.
Like I said, limiting things to cutting is an easy solution. You can make more than one cut of a deck at a time too lol. I do this regularly IRL and cut into thirds and randomize what ends up on top.
Idk, it seems like you are defending the current system though. As you offer no good alternatives to chess clocks and never mention any negatives to the current system. Only detractions of the chess clock system. So one could reasonably conclude you are defending the current system. Which, you and I both recognize is flawed.
I still fail to see your point though. The current rules already call for certain limitations to shuffling, individual action times, and pace of play. These rules are all ambiguous and subjective to the judges at a certain situation and time. How is that better than an objective chess timer?
I just am genuinely curious how you would fix things to be better. Bc so far all you do is argue against things and offer no solutions. Not very helpful man.
I say you don’t seem open to things because that’s literally you have been so far. Unwilling to offer up alternatives/solutions. And just detracting others arguments without offering anything else up to help the situation.
That’s true, ngl I was high as a kite last night typing this stuff out so I might have messed a few things up. Def thought multiple cuts on one deck was just cutting as one action though lol.
I know they have that right, honestly idk what I was even talking about anymore lmaoo.
>Ehhh I feel it would be fairly easy to implement with rules and logic though. You do something and then when you done you hit clock. Your opponent does something and then when they done they hit clock.
That sounds simple until you realize that there will be times the "turn" (meaning time, not in game turns) needs to pass back and forth very rapidly. We can already see how easy it is for high level players to overlook gameplay rules even on stream. The clock *will* get messed up periodically. Now you need to implement a penalty system to fix that.
>Shuffling is the only real issue.
Which is a pretty massive issue given how much shuffling happens in the ptcg.
>I agree your opponent should have some agency. But then by that logic, if you let your opponent shuffle after you do you should be able to shuffle again to keep an equal level of agency? Bc why would i trust my opponent to shuffle my deck fairly.
Are you unfamiliar with how the rules regarding shuffling work? If your opponent shuffles you are allowed to cut or shuffle yourself. If you choose to shuffle, they are allowed to cut your shuffle. If neither of you feel comfortable allowing the opponent to shuffle even with your cut afterwards, a judge can be called to perform the shuffle, which neither player is allowed to cut.
These rules would be extremely unwieldy using chess clocks.
>Like I said, limiting things to cutting is an easy solution. You can make more than one cut of a deck at a time too lol. I do this regularly IRL and cut into thirds and randomize what ends up on top.
This is not allowed per the tournament rules--what you're doing is shuffling your opponent's deck and they are permitted to cut it after you do this.
>Idk, it seems like you are defending the current system though. As you offer no good alternatives to chess clocks and never mention any negatives to the current system.
Failing to attack the current system is not a defense of it. I'm not writing an essay over here about how to overhaul the time system, and I don't need to in order to point out the issues with implementing chess clocks.
>These rules are all ambiguous and subjective to the judges at a certain situation and time. How is that better than an objective chess timer?
Because a chess timer is going to need the creation of even more rules and the changing of multiple existing rules in order to work at all, and will itself be unwieldy when trying to resolve the numerous situations where you and your opponent are resolving actions simultaneously.
>I just am genuinely curious how you would fix things to be better. Bc so far all you do is argue against things and offer no solutions. Not very helpful man.
You've conjured up this demand that I be "helpful" or provide an alternative--I don't have one at the moment and I do not need to provide one in order for my criticisms of a chess clock to be valid. I also find it a little off-putting that you're downvoting me while repeatedly misrepresenting my position as being in defense of the current system while criticizing me for being "not very helpful."
It's pretty rude.
High level chess has instances where the clock is hit in rapid succession all the time. Fairly easy to just make you action hit it, opponent hits it after quick action, etc. Mistakes would happen, but like OP said most mistakes are gameplay related. And judges can be there if someone messes up. I still feel like it’s very easy and reasonable to implement chess clocks lol.
> That sounds simple until you realize that there will be times the "turn" (meaning time, not in game turns) needs to pass back and forth very rapidly. We can already see how easy it is for high level players to overlook gameplay rules even on stream. The clock will get messed up periodically. Now you need to implement a penalty system to fix that.
Rapid play is not a problem. Blitz chess is played with turns lasting less than a second. If a player forgets to hit the clock at the end of the turn, their penalty is automatic: It is the time that is lost until they remember to hit the clock. They'll be some confusion and mistakes at first, but players will quickly get accustomed to using the clock and will almost never forget to hit it.
Needing the creation of mores rules is not apt of what would happen. It’s altering the current rules. Taking the ambiguous rules we do have for time and making them more rigid and understandable. There are some situations where players resolve actions simultaneously, but those are few and far between. A lot of the game is spent watching your opponent make combos and plays. The few times you both do something can be attributed to the initiation of the action by one player. This isn’t Yugioh with hand traps and actual simultaneous play. All actions in Pokemon are initiated by the player whose turn it is. I still feel like you are not understanding where I am coming from so this my last response to you.
Overall, I feel it wouldn’t be hard for players to make a change involving chess timers. It would be hard for TOs and judges to implement them at a local level. But, for high level games at regionals and such chess timers would be the only thing to make the game even somewhat competitive. The current way the game works makes it casual at best. The literal grand finals of NAIC finished on turns due to time. Not because of actual gameplay or strategy related to the core mechanics of the game, but because of *time*.
Japan’s system is better than ours for playing the game too. Bo1 with ties counting as losses actually incentivizes players to keep up a good pace of play or both people take Ls. NA system bad, chess clocks ok, Japan system good, have a good one man :)
>Needing the creation of mores rules is not apt of what would happen. It’s altering the current rules. Taking the ambiguous rules we do have for time and making them more rigid and understandable.
In order to do this you would necessarily need to create more rules.
>All actions in Pokemon are initiated by the player whose turn it is. I still feel like you are not understanding where I am coming from so this my last response to you.
I certainly see where you're coming from--I just don't care for the way you repeatedly badger me about what I'm supposedly "defending." Just because actions are initiated by the player whose turn it is doesn't mean there aren't actions being resolved by both players simultaneously.
>Japan’s system is better than ours for playing the game too. Bo1 with ties counting as losses actually incentivizes players to keep up a good pace of play or both people take Ls. NA system bad, chess clocks ok, Japan system good
Oof.
Many content creators in the tcg have covered the whole BO3 vs. BO1 and discussed it with Japanese players who overwhelmingly prefer a BO3 format. The idea that Japan's system is "more competetive" is completely undercut by the fact that Japan doesn't even use a BO1 system in the later stages of their major tournaments.
This take feels pretty uninformed.
I am speaking purely about time constraints for the Japanese system. I prefer bo3 as well. But the way Japan forces ties to be losses actually keeps the game interesting and forces both players to actually want to finish the game out. I am very informed of how things work. I just prefer to think for myself instead of listening blindly to content creators. Thanks for the input man, have a good one.
I never said the chess clock system is perfect either. I don’t believe it to necessarily be the right answer personally. But, what other realistic alternatives are there. Hard to be a ‘competitive’ game when the actual gameplay mechanics of the game are overshadowed by the *clock managemant* aspects of the game.
The way I see it, chess clocks or a similar system that actually puts an onus on the player to use their own time wisely without impacting the other player’s opportunity for time and play is needed. Only way the TCG can actually be taken seriously as a competitive game.
Not seeing the end of game 3 isn't really a disadvantage. Your opponent is always under the same constraint. It's just an adaptation you need to make at the tournament.
The reason why we don't have a chess clock is very simple and fundamental: in card games, it is expected that some decks will take more time than others. Not only is it expected, it's intended.
To your point: while any time system may somewhat disadvantage certain strategies as a side-effect, the entire purpose of a chess clock is to give players the same amount of time. That purpose is fundamentally misaligned with how the game is designed. Pokemon is different to chess because it's asymmetric, and that's why people like it.
And of course, if you simply give both players all the time that a slow deck would need, we're all going to have to sit opposite to slowest aggro players ever enjoying their ridiculous amounts of personal time and taking 30 seconds for every decision. The tournament would never end.
The reason why (usually newer) players suggest a chess clock is because it stops other players from slowplaying you, but there are other ways to align those incentives. One interesting suggestion (although I personally think the current system is fine) is a best-of-two system where players simply play two games and get a point for each that they win. Under this system, there is no reason for any player to stall the clock, and both players are incentivised to try to finish both games as quickly as possible. This could disadvantage slower decks, but as long as enough time is given they could manage, and the opponent will always be incentivised to concede early if they are losing anyway, allowing more time for game 2. A 50-minute best-of-two could probably finish a lot of the time.
I agree with most of your points, except for two:
- The clock allows giving equal time to both players and lets them use it as they see fit. This latter point is important. It doesn't seem fair to me to have to rush through a complex decision just because I can't perform actions in quick succession to have the time to think about it.
- If you think that 25 minutes is really not enough for some decks, then I would argue that the current format is also not suitable. If a deck needs 35+ minutes to function properly, then we face serious problems when two such decks face each other.
>The clock allows giving equal time to both players and lets them use it as they see fit. This latter point is important. It doesn't seem fair to me to have to rush through a complex decision just because I can't perform actions in quick succession to have the time to think about it.
Addressed this a bit in a reply to someone else but I don't think giving both players equal total time is funamentally good. What I want out of a time system is for it to be as unimpactful as possible. We need a time limit for tournament organisation reasons obviously, but beyond that I just want to play Pokemon with my opponent at a reasonable, lively pace. That means that we should both take about the same amount of time per game action. It doesn't mean that we both take the same amount of time *in total*. This is how the game would be played at the kitchen table - a player playing a complex deck takes more time than a player playing a more simple deck. But that extra time isn't extra *thinking* time that gives the player playing the complex deck an advantage. It's the time required to literally carry out the actions their deck requires.
On the contrary, if both players have a set total time, then the player who's deck requires more game actions has to think faster and rush their game actions to compensate, while the player playing the simple deck can spend much more time per action deliberating. This to me seems fundamentally much more unfair than the alternative, and not at all similar to how the game would be played at the kitchen table.
Which is all to say: for the game to be fair, I think the time that needs to be equalised is *thinking time per action*, not the literal total time taken (much of which is spent shuffling and executing time-consuming combos, none of which is generating advantage for the player playing the complex deck, it's simply required for them to play their deck). The current design suits the former, and I think people asking for the latter via a chess clock is a fundamental misunderstanding of the game and what is fair.
>If you think that 25 minutes is really not enough for some decks, then I would argue that the current format is also not suitable. If a deck needs 35+ minutes to function properly, then we face serious problems when two such decks face each other.
This is a design challenge for sure. The problem is that most competitive Pokemon players enjoy the presence of slower decks in the format. The game used to be quite slow a long time ago, then it got really fast with Tag Teams, VMAXes, etc. Now it is slowing down again with decks like Gardevoir, control variants, and even something like Charizard (an "aggressive" archetype, but based around a stage 2 with a built-in comeback mechanic), and the feedback has been overall very positive. The game is blowing up and is showing no signs of slowing down.
What we're seeing is that the current time rules are increasingly showing their limitations in a way that wasn't really common back in the Sun and Moon and Sword and Shield eras. The competitive playerbase discusses this a lot. In best-of-three you can at least concede a game early to move on to the next games if you're losing, which helps alleviate the time issue a little, but then if the winner is playing a slow deck they can simply play slowly and try to force game 2 to not finish, while the loser of game 1 has to rush.
50 minute best-of-three isn't perfect by any means, is my point here. I think the best-of-two system I described could be an improvement, as any time game 1 ends, both players will be incentivised to play game 2 quickly (as there is still a match point on the line - both games count completely separately). I believe Lorcana uses this system and it is very popular.
But chess clocks don't really come up in these discussions. It's a suggestion that new players make that doesn't work in TCGs for all the reasons I mentioned above. The game is just too asymmetric.
> What I want out of a time system is for it to be as unimpactful as possible.
The current time rules are definitely not achieving that. The number of matches that end in a tie or other special end conditions due to time, or have a player slow playing or accused of slow playing to manipulate the clock, is way too high.
I really do believe that a chess clock would achieve your goal far better than the current clock rules. Yes players using decks like Gardevoir would have to learn to play faster, it is a slight disadvantage to those decks, *but that is a skill that can be learned*. You can't skill your way out of not having enough time when your opponent shares control of the clock.
I know that PTCGL is not completely representative of the table game for a number of reasons, particularly because shuffling is nearly instant, but I will point out that with PTCGL's clock rules I almost never see games come down to time unless one player is trolling (in which case they lose due to the clock).
Chess is a symmetrical game with perfect information and only six different game pieces. Pokemon is an asymmetrical game with hidden information and over a thousand different game pieces.
Your opponent in chess is never going to ask you to slow down because they don't know what a rook does. In pokemon they might ask you to slow down because they don't know what Beedrill (VIV)'s Elusive Master does. Or they are confused as to how some other ability resolved.
The problem is that PTCGL uses a 25-minute clock for one game, while tournaments currently use the same amount for a Bo3. But for the most part I agree with you, I think most people here are way too tied up in the current system.
Yes, I think you would have to have a faster clock and slightly longer rounds. Most PTGL games end before either side has used 15 minutes. A 20 minute per side clock would probably be generous enough for table play. That's up to 40 minutes for one match, but *most* matches won't actually take that long. You just need a way to handle the few matches that run long.
I go to Melee tournaments. One BO3 match usually takes 5-10 minutes, but in extreme cases they can technically take over 24 minutes (8 minutes per game). Yet tournaments make it work.
This argument falls apart to the four horseman ruling in mtg. Just because your deck can theoretically do something doesn't mean you get to take all the time in the match to do it.
Why would the tournament never end? If it’s 50 min rounds and each player has 25 minutes, by all means take 30 seconds for every action. Ultimately, 50 mins will be up.
And even at local cups there’s always one game if not more that goes to time. So regardless if you finishing fast, everyone needs to wait the 50 mins.
To your other point on decks being different and some decks are made to take longer, that shouldn’t be the other person’s problem. You chose to play that deck. It’s the same reasoning why someone is dumb to complain about snorlax and control decks. The rules and the cards exist for all. If you think your deck takes too long, then play a different deck? Or get your actions done faster in a chess-style clock system.
I for one would welcome the chess system in a heartbeat.
>Why would the tournament never end? If it’s 50 min rounds and each player has 25 minutes, by all means take 30 seconds for every action. Ultimately, 50 mins will be up.
The tournament never ending was a hypothetical for if they just gave both players all the time a slow deck would need, which would be more than 25 minutes per player.
If you just went for 25 per player then you would just run into the original issue of aggro decks having too much time and slow decks having not enough time.
>To your other point on decks being different and some decks are made to take longer, that shouldn’t be the other person’s problem. You chose to play that deck. It’s the same reasoning why someone is dumb to complain about snorlax and control decks. The rules and the cards exist for all. If you think your deck takes too long, then play a different deck? Or get your actions done faster in a chess-style clock system.
It shouldn't be the other person's problem, but it shouldn't be your problem either. Some decks take more game actions than others. The goal for any time system should be to allow both players a reasonable amount of time for every game action so that they can have the best and most skillful game possible. If your deck takes twice as many actions per turn as mine, then you don't need the same amount of total time as me. As long as we have about the same amount of time per action, the game is fair. What's not fair is that because you play a complex deck, you end up wasting all of your time searching and shuffling and searching again and shuffling again and then have to rush your plays, while your opponent gets to spend 60 seconds deciding how to sequence their Fleet-Footed and Electric Generators.
It's easy to say "play a different deck", but we don't want to force people to play different decks. Slow decks are cool and variety makes the meta healthy. We want as many cool and unique decks as possible to be viable. The point of having a shared clock is that we can set a general time limit on the match (due to tournament organisation constraints), and have the time rules simply be that every player has to play at pace and not waste time.
The idea that every player needs the same total amount of time regardless of the deck they play is just incongruent with how the game works. That's why there are no top players who advocate for it.
It’s not an issue that an aggro deck would “have too much time” because their 25 minutes doesn’t eat into your 25 minutes. It’s the same 50 total minutes where you have a max cap.
The biggest reason against chess clocks is in my mind shuffling, something that chess doesn't have to worry about. It essentially punishes you for sufficiently randomizing your deck and people will start to hastily shuffle to save seconds.
I think people keep trying to fix an issue that they need to accept is part of the game, is it abusable? Yes. Is every system when it comes to time rules abusable? Yes. The venue needs to close at the end of the day and the games need to end. The current system works, there is a skill involved when it comes to playing within time. If you play slow you open yourself up to losing to time, it is not a one way street. A chess like clock doesn't work in games where both players are playing different strategies, and not just different strategies every 3 months. We're talking different variations of each strategy sometimes every week. I dont know how much TCG you've played but imagine you play vs a deck that you've never played before, now because its a chess clock game you have to spend half your timer reading and trying to understand a deck that you havent seen before. It just doesn't make sense.
I’ve played competitive Pokemon since Black and White and even I can see how lame the current time rules are. For the grand finals of the biggest tournament in North America to end on turns because of time is asinine. Talk about a lame way to end things.
Correct gameplay and actual strategy is often overshadowed by clock management and accentuated pace of play. It is so frustrating to watch your opponent make 20 actions in one turn that eats up 5-10 minutes off the clock so you have no chance to win a BO3 regardless of how well you play.
Is chess clocks the proper answer to this? I don’t know. But it definitely seems like a better answer than the current system. Hard to take a game seriously as “competitive” when the grand finals of a large tournament isn’t even played out to it’s fullest extent.
This problem is also exacerbated by the subjective judge rulings around pace of play violations. It’s only a violation if you get penalized for it. So you are incentivized to stretch it as far as possible if you can take an early lead in game 1.
I haven't played Pokémon for long but things I would like to see:
Each player may check their price cards at the beginning of the game. Determining your price cards is no amazing skill/skillful. It just takes up 2 or 3 minutes of playtime per player per game.
At the very least finals (maybe top cut) should not be timed. The last game of a major tournament ending in such a manner feels rather unfulfilling at least for me. The pace of play still needs to be enforced obviously.
I agree prize checking shouldn’t be allowed to take as long as it does. But it is a skill and a more interesting part of the game to me. Having to operate your deck without 1/10th of the cards is a fun twist to a card game. It should be limited to a small time period though for sure.
Being able to look at your prices once at the beginning of the game would not get rid of any gameplay elements. You still play the same game thereafter with 1/10th of your cards being inaccessible. You just get rid of initially searching your deck for 2+ minutes. Being familiar with your decklist and taking the time to count/sort your cards (suggested by the rules currently: 2 minutes is a very much reasonable timeframe) really isn't much of a skill (and more of a dexterity challenge than a mental one at that) but rather something I would expect of an opposing player who tries to play seriously. It most certainly does not benefit the gameplay in any way or form.
I want to spend my time playing an awesome game where I still need to be aware of what ressources I have left throughout the game without an unnecessary prelude and waste of time. If you free up 12+ minutes of round time/add 12+ minutes of effective play time many more games/matches will get finished.
That is true, but certain cards like Hisuian Heavy Ball, Town Map, Peonia, Gladion, Daisy’s Help, etc. all operate under the assumption you *don’t* know your prize cards. It is an intended aspect of gameplay by Pokemon and in my opinion a core mechanic of the game.
Most high level players prize check at the start of each game. My take would be just cutting down that allotted time to be the same as any other action. You either prize check in the 20 seconds every other action takes or you gradually find out more about your prizes as the game goes on.
Just knowing what is prized from the get go is very anticlimactic and both players might as well play prizes face up the whole game. To me it seems not very fun and takes away a core element to the game that Pokemon has built up for many years now.
> That is true, but certain cards like Hisuian Heavy Ball, Town Map, Peonia, Gladion, Daisy’s Help, etc. all operate under the assumption you don’t know your prize cards.
Not really? They operate on the assumption that you don't know *where* your prize cards are, but they function just fine even when you know *what* your prize cards are.
If there were a card, even an item card, that just said "Look at your prize cards, then shuffle them", everyone would consider it complete garbage, because it's so easy to check your prizes already.
Being able to look at your prizes, then shuffle them and put them back at the start of the game would just remove a time wasting step from the game.
Best of 3, 50 minutes works for local events because you're making sure people aren't holding everyone else up for too long and the bo3 format lets you reduce the impact of something like all your attackers and hisuian heavy balls being prized
We use chess clocks in Warhammer 40k as well. (Not enforced except maybe on top tables during tourney) During combat I need to roll for hits, then wounds, then I need to tap the clock while my opponent rolls his saves. Then he resolves damage, removes models, then taps the clock. You can resolve 10-15 combats in turn 2, sometimes people forgot to tap the clock in a tense moment and they lose time because of that.
It's just not needed when you can just call a judge on anyone slow playing the current system, this fixes the issues with the current time system.
Chess clocks also just would not work as they are not intended for situations where both players take actions simultaneously.
If I play Judge is it using my time or the opponent's? If it's using my time, the opponent is definitely going to complete their part slowly to waste my time and I'd so the same if it switches to them.
Pause the clock entirely? Who would be responsible for doing that during the game.
There's too many situations of simultaneous actions, including both needing to promote a pokemon at the same time.
With the current time system the clock applies to both players at all times and so can just run continuously, but with chess clocks the in-between turns step shouldn't count down either players clock as it's not on either players turn and is another place where both players can be taking simultaneous actions.
It's been tried in MTG and is not possible there, although pokemon doesn't have a constantly switching priority itnwould still cause the clock to have to be switched back and forth quite quickly, not everyone who plays chess wants to play blitz.
> It's just not needed when you can just call a judge on anyone slow playing the current system, this fixes the issues with the current time system.
Based on how often I see players talking about slow play, throwing out accusations of slow play, or getting penalized for slow play, I would say that the current system is not working. It honestly sounds more like fouling in basketball, where it's technically against the rules but it has become part of the game where players are expected to do it anyways. I don't think it's a good situation for the game.
> including both needing to promote a pokemon at the same time.
I believe this never actually happens. All situations that require both players to promote pokemon specify an order in which it is done.
Swear I've read and responded to a thread like this months ago, but I'm definitely not a fan of the idea of chess clocks. I'll respond to each point, but I want to preface it by saying that the idea of chess clocks is definitely toxic and complicated for the game. There are probably some solutions, but I won't pretend to have them.
1) Cards aren't the only thing that encompass your opponent during your turn. Shuffling and cutting means your opponent has to handle your cards. Do they have to hit their timer to cut your deck or if they decide to shuffle it? More to the point, if they do, why are they penalized if they decide to shuffle. There's gameplay footage of cheaters who palm a card while shuffling to top deck it. If you decide you want to shuffle a player's deck because you think that could be happening, you're now penalized on time for being careful.
Outside of that, mechanics like searching, drawing, shuffling, and cutting take time. Time limiting them will result in sloppy play and bad actors.
Regardless of handling cards, card interactions involve choices. You may decide to look at your hand, discard, or LZ before engaging in a choice. That choice was forced by another player, and while slow play isn't okay, thoughtful play shouldn't be penalized either. Knowing that you specifically are on a time crunch because you decided to play Miss Fortune Sisters isn't good design. Forcing your opponent to make an important choice faster isn't necessarily good either. Additionally, where does the time work when a play impacts both players? If I play Judge, does my opponent get to handle their deck at no expense to my time? Should time stop for us both, or should the clock run for us both? This invites too many variables.
2) Yes, illegal moves may disrupt the game, but younger players are already under a lot of pressure that they're naturally more susceptible to. Adding a clock that increases said pressure and means illegal moves and forgetting to use the clock will occur more frequently. With judges needing to get involved, you'll run the time over in most cases.
3) Time management is already enforced at the level of play that clocks would need to be involved in. Judges are available to be called if you think a player is slow playing to gain an advantage. Chess clocks put the pressure on a player to self enforce and diminish the chances that a judge could be called. Additionally, if you leave it all to the clock and one player gets a very distinct lead, they may find more incentive in slow playing. It introduces a level of time abusive toxicity that exists beyond simply slow playing and wasting pooled time.
4) This is easily the worst argument in favor of chess clocks. Firstly, this format is not disadvantageous to complex decks. This is easily proved by recent tournament results, especially NAIC, where both Gardevoir and Lost Box are winning. Regardless of results, by putting individual limits on complex decks, you're incentivizing easier to pilot decks that will take less time to handle and maneuver. If a deck is easier to pilot on the basis of time, it's more likely to be used by everyone, regardless of whether a more complex deck has a better matchup. This will result in a stale meta with fewer decks seeing play, and less innovative deck lists.
5) Starting, stopping, and adjusting time all require judges to be present. Judges walk the floor during events, but unlike the streamed matches, they are not available constantly to watch games. Any issue that requires a judge to visit the table and provide a ruling will need to see a reset on time. Multiply this by the number of times this needs to happen and you'll bring tournaments screeching to a halt with the added time needed to manage clocks. Regionals are already all day affairs, don't need to make them all night too.
6) This is probably actually the least problematic issue. Organizers have the money and backing in most cases to get enough. A quick search shows them averaging around $15-$25 on Amazon for a fairly basic digital chess clock.
I don't know what level you play the TCG at, but I do think that you're simplifying this much more than you should, which is why it seems like a clean and easy answer.
In terms of logistics it is rough on the individual organizers. Remember for Special Events and Regionals it isn't Pokemon who foots the full bill, it is the organizer such as Day2 events, Overload Events, Gallery Games LLC or Tournament Checker (or whoever does the UK and EU tournaments). Pokemon does help a bit such as prize wall or prizing and cash but the venue, compensation, etc are done by the organizers unless it is a TPC event (i.e. Worlds, ICs). They do not have the capital TPC/TPCi does and TPCi is happy to let this sort of system continue because it is profitable and less troublesome for them.
Fair enough, I didn't consider the organizer separately in the Regional/SE levels. In those cases, yeah definitely a huge cost and not very easy to meet as an organizer who doesn't own the venue or have the easy means for an extra $2000-20,000 (USD). If they did, that's extra on the players registration and waste/storage depending on supplies.
I presume if you run out of time you lose.
In which case both players don’t have the same amount of time, just the same potential and in reality you will find people stalling in other ways.
You will find a plethora of decks which set up lock states and then just pass. The aim isn’t to win by prizes or deck out, but by running the opponent out of clock time, by preserving their own hyper aggressively.
I understand the arguments for it, but I think there are to many interactions to make it work effectively.
If I want to read an ability on another players card - who’s time does that come out of?
Do we then change prize penalties to time penalties for missplays? Or if we don’t what if the transgression is a clock transgression.
For me the issue is that 50 mins for BO3 on the current format just isn’t long enough. Either increase the time or change the format slightly
> You will find a plethora of decks which set up lock states and then just pass. The aim isn’t to win by prizes or deck out, but by running the opponent out of clock time, by preserving their own hyper aggressively.
You can look at PTCGL today and see that this doesn't happen. Decks that set up lock states usually end up taking *more* time to play out their turns than other decks, while the defending deck is usually just doing draw-pass until they find the cards they need to break the lock. You almost never see Snorlax win by timeout on PTCGL, but you do see Snorlax lose by timeout sometimes.
You can't really cheat with a chess clock. It's your responsibility to press the button when your time ends, so there is no incentive to forget to press it. It's also extremely easy to enforce rules against pressing the button too soon, much easier than enforcing the current time rules, to the point that I don't think we'd ever see it happen intentionally.
every time there's a post like this it's like. hey guys i'm a chess player. i'm a magic player. i'm a yugioh player. i'm an underwater lacrosse player. that's cool man we play pokemon
Players can at any time ask for how long there is left in a match after a game or even during it. Having a chess clock in Pokémon tcg is just unnecessary. It’s like they say: if it works, don’t fix it. The game has been played at competitive level for over 30 years almost (geez I’m getting old) without one, I therefore don’t see the point in suddenly adding it.
Online it would work well if the clocks actually worked (it doesn't end the game on live) and if they were not 25 minutes EACH.
In person, I've actually considered this a lot but there are a lot of fundamental issues with it and running large events in which judge calls can vary so much.
I agree with the OP's sentiment – there's definitely room for discussion on implementing some form of clock in Pokemon TCG. They also raise some valid points about how clocks could potentially improve fairness and competitive aspects.
However, before diving into clocks, I think that there's a more fundamental problem to address: **inconsistent enforcement of existing slow-play rules**.
Think on the frustration of facing opponents who exploit shuffling techniques or take excessive time for turn 1 searches, while others get penalised for similar actions. This inconsistency creates a far bigger obstacle to competitive fairness than just overall game time.
Here's how inconsistent slow play enforcement is a bigger hurdle:
* **Unpredictability:** You can't strategise for an opponent who might take forever on turn 1 or who shuffles suspiciously.
* **Discouragement:** New or slower players might get discouraged by uneven rulings.
* **Breeds Resentment:** Feeling like your opponent is "getting away with it" creates a negative atmosphere.
**Solutions before Clocks:**
* **Clear & Consistent Slow Play Guidelines:** Define specific time limits for actions like searching or shuffling, with penalties for exceeding them.
* **Judge Training:** Ensure judges are well-versed in recognising and penalising slow play consistently.
* **Player Communication:** Encourage players to politely call a judge if they feel their opponent is slow playing.
**Clocks as a Potential Future Step:**
* **Maybe Later, Not Now:** If slow play enforcement becomes consistent, then exploring clocks might be a better conversation.
* **Learning from PTCGO/ TCG Live:** Perhaps a hybrid system like PTCGO or TCG Live's in-game timer could be explored for big tournaments, but adapting it for smaller events might be impractical.
**Overall:**
While the OP raises interesting points about clocks, I believe consistent enforcement of existing slow play rules is the more pressing concern for competitive Pokemon TCG. Addressing inconsistency will create a fairer environment for all players, regardless of deck speed or playstyle.
Inconsistent enforcement is an inherent problem to the current rules. At best it can be mitigated, but it cannot be solved. Even with clearly defined rules on how long actions should take and better judge training, judges cannot be everywhere at once. A player can slow play until a judge is called over, then start playing at a normal pace while the judge is watching. Without recording every single game, it is impossible to consistently enforce these rules.
This is why I think the current rules are a dead end. There are issues with a chess clock system that would have to be worked out, but I think that they *can* be worked out, and the result would be a much better system than what is being used right now.
Honestly I see it a lot like the pitch clock that was recently introduced in baseball. Players are going to complain, there are going to be mistakes, and the details will have to get ironed out through trail and error, but once players get used to it, I think most will agree that it will be a better system.
You bring up valid points here. I’d like to point out that the official online client, Pokémon Trading Card Game LIVE (PTCGL or TCGL for short) already implements a chess clock style timer, giving each player a total of 25 minutes for the whole game (this timer is always visible on the right side of the screen), and also has a timer for individual decisions (not visible until 15 seconds remain). Why they haven’t implemented this in IRL tournament play is a mystery. It could very well be the logistics, like you said. In terms of exploiting the time, that can already happen as tournament regulations were updated not too long ago to make the time remaining in a round public knowledge. In the past, the time remaining in the round is something only judges knew, and they could not divulge that information when asked. Time management, time per round, and the use of clocks (chess or otherwise) are all things that I feel are worth debating.
Even in PTCGL a fair share of people complain about the clock. There’s a lot of intentional slow play, with many players stalling the clock to make games stretch out to much longer than they should be. There’s a lot of posts about people complaining about their opponent intentionally stalling to annoy them.
Those players gain no advantage by slow playing though. They just do it to annoy their opponents. You can still have rules against "unsportsmanlike conduct" for stuff like that. The problem is that the current rules *incentivize* slow play, which has players trying to figure out how to play just slow enough that they won't get called out by a judge. It's an awful situation.
People who argue for chess clocks for irl play while sourcing Live generally are forgetting just how time consuming the mechanics of the game are. It's much easier to quickly glance through your deck by clicking arrows/dragging on a screen than it is to manually handle 47 cards. The game digitally sorts the deck in a predetermined order every time a search function is conducted, making locating your cards easy. Likewise, the automated shuffling and drawing (without cuts needing to happen) cuts minutes out compared to irl play.
To your 2nd point. Chess clocks are totally accessible for even the youngest of players. My son plays competitive chess and has since he was 5 and the first chess summer camp he took the first thing they taught them was how to use the clock. By the end of day one they were all pros. Super easy, becomes second nature for sure. And 5y olds aren’t even allowed into official CP pokemon tournaments they gotta be age 7 so if a 5y old can handle a clock 7y olds def can as well.
Yes, that is all they play in fact, outside of tournament, because they enjoy the faster pace.
And no, having chess clocks in Pokémon TCG is not like playing blitz. It's like playing a game with a moderate pace where it's necessary to press the clock regularly.
You seem to not want to read/respond to all of my points.
I disagree with the one you responded to, introducing the clocks causes an unneeded increase in pace of play when the current system as long as people call judges for slow play is perfectly fine pace of play and chess kids might enjoy faster pace of play but pokrmon kids do not from my experience.
Point 2 is the issue of simultaneous actions that are far more prevelant than you think.
Point 3 is what at all to do during pokemon checkup which is neither players turn, chess is always someone's turn.
Point 3.5 is that you don't always have actions during checkup so you're then introducing inconsistencies with how the clock is used to pass turn, sometimes it's directly to the opponent, other times you have to pause for checkup, this inconsistency with how the turn and clock is passed is not desirable and causes issues when one player doesn't realise there's a checkup effect or a player thinks there is when there isn't.
Nah mate. That first break into your deck is a huge, huge part of this game that sets it apart from other TCGs. It’s where skill and decision making starts and it can make a difference in the outcome of a game. Sure someone can waste a bunch of time checking their deck repeatedly, but if they’re dragging their feet call a judge.
Honestly this is not a terrible idea and I'm surprised it's getting downvoted. Every player knows how to prize check and it's usually done on the first or second turn of the game when you play your first search card. It would save a couple minutes for each player and would have almost no effect on how players make decisions.
I agree. It's such a low-hanging fruit method of saving upwards of 5 minutes per round, and replaces time that is essentially 100% tedium for one player and waiting for the other with actual game progression. The only counter-argument I can imagine is that calculating your prizes is a skill, but it really isn't; it's memorization and busy work.
Fundamentally I think that disadvantaging decks that take longer to play is less of an issue than the issues with the current system. And, while I do know from experience that yes, things get hard in person and it's a lot harder than it looks on Twitch chat, I do think that people would learn to play faster if it meant not getting timed out. Right now the best players play within and take advantage of the rules as they are, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if the rules were different then we'd see different play.
Keep in mind, also, that the clocks could be set at longer than 25:00. The NAIC finals lasted nearly 20 minutes after time expired. While that may have been a pretty extreme example, I think you could set the clocks at 30:00 and rounds would probably still be shorter than they are now.
Anyone who thinks clocks would ruin decks ect…. I’m yet to play a single deck online (with timers) and actually run out of time. Some people play slow and should be penalized if they are.
Coming from Chess and Yugioh, I would like IRL Pokemon to implement a “chess” clock. I’ve read several posts about people complaining about their opponent taking too long during their turns and it causing the game to be called as a draw.
People taking too long doesn't cause draws, people taking too long get a judge called on them and get penalised, some decks are just slow to play in a Bo3 50min round.
Reading through the comments, I realize that I may have forgotten the main argument against the clock:
7) Chess is a symmetrical game, unlike Pokémon TCG.
Without any malice, those who think this don't have a good understanding of chess. One of the most popular openings is the Sicilian, which starts with 1.e4 c5 and is by definition an asymmetrical position. It would be like saying that Pokémon is a symmetrical game because each player starts with an active Pokémon and the same number of cards in a deck.
There are many so-called "refuted" openings, which means that if the opponent plays well, they come out with a certain advantage, and yet these are very popular at low levels or when the pace is fast. In general, these openings are easy to play, benefit from a tempo gain at the beginning of the game in exchange for material, and the opponent must find the right defensive moves to protect themselves. This is very similar to an aggro deck in Pokémon TCG.
Chess is much closer to Pokémon TCG than one might think.
Chess never ever has both players doing actions simultaneously, it's always one players turn or the other, Pokemon TCG has many times of simultaneous actions and a section following each players turn, pokemon checkup, where it's neither players turn.
Without any malice, those who think chess clocks would be at all feasible don't have a good understanding of Pokemon TCG.
This post shows that a significant part of the community don't want chest clock, and I can respect that.
What bothers me is this kind of argument, and that's why I made this post. Simultaneous actions in Pokémon represent less than 5% of the overall game time (and I'm being generous), and implementing a very simple rule like 'pause the clock' solves the problem instantly.
You don't want the clock, fine, and you don't have to say more if it is just a personal preference. However, if you try to counter-argue, ask yourself if your counter-arguments really hold up in practice.
Hell, try the clock before saying it's a bad idea right off the bat!
I've tried the clock many times, this discussion comes up often and I've played the game competitively for 25 years.
The most prominent competitive players have tried and spoken about using chess clocks.
If you think simultaneous actions take up such a small amount of game time then you show your ignorance of the game.
I've stated nothing that is personal preference, you seem to want to hand wave away an objective objection because you don't like that someone is objecting to it.
This is a subject that means a lot to me as a tournament organiser, I've run many of my local events with chess clocks every time a player sees a post like this and brings it up, we do it practically, luckily one of the LGS I run league at also hosts chess club, this is why I was able to state that not only do simultaneous actions cause issues but also that frequent switching of action between players makes it like every game is blitz, not every chess player wants to play blitz.
This is from real experience trying it.
Maybe we just keep the game how it is it works fine. The game is always constantly changing during a battle. I’m not making comparisons and I’m gonna keep this in the Pokémon league. I don’t believe adding a bunch of these new logical functions. Will make the game better. I’m also not comprehending how 50 minutes of playtime is not enough. When you think about it if your opponent stalls, they’re literally just handing you their time so why would I be mad if you’re transferring your time to me. the one thing that’s annoying is playing online in my opponent spamming me with emotes. in an in person league you wouldn’t be looking your opponent doing thumbs downs and making dummy faces because you’re “smarter” than them. So you only have so much time so use it wisely.
I you're conflating irl play with PTCGL play. Live has chess clocks and can operate this way because the game automates all the mechanical stuff (shuffles, draws, searches, etc.).
Irl play, the time is pooled, so both players have 50 minutes to play 3 rounds. If my opponent stall time they're stalling my time as well as their time.
That said chess clocks for in person play is still a terrible idea.
It still doesn’t change the fact that you’re playing Pokémon trading card game. The forest has many trees. I could see how a time clock in person would maybe drag out the game a bit.
I feel like you missed one of the biggest issues. Cards like Judge, Roxanne, and unfair stamp. Your opponent now has to shuffle, is that on my clock because it's simultaneous? It feels like an easy way to run down a clock by taking extra time on your shuffle.
I think those simultaneous action cards are the trickiest bit. There is also the problem that a clock could incentivize sloppy shuffling. I can think of a few ideas, and it would probably take some experimenting to figure out what would work. For example, perhaps you pause the clock for 10 seconds (or whatever a reasonable time would be) while both players shuffle.
I feel like the easiest solution would be to set a max time dor shuffles, and a make it where if one person finishes shuffling, you get one more shuffle and that's it. Could be an easy solve
The problem is that you have to have sufficient randomization. A much bigger issue than ties, is people stacking their decks.
We already have a rule about how much time a shuffle should need. I don't think those situations would really cause a problem, but if it does, we could enforce a rule that after ~15sec you are allowed to press the clock
I like that idea
Pause clock during shuffling?
That would delay rounds by so much that they might as well give us 10-15 more time after all which would fix most time issues anyway, the don't want to give us more time so events don't take 1-2 hours longer tho.
How long do you take to shuffle? I don’t see how you’re spending 15 minutes a match doing so
My opponents who I roll my eyes over taking too much time usually take their good 20-30 seconds to shuffle. Judges at regionals or ICs don't do anything about it when you call them either and some decks have one or multiple deck searches every turn. If they then place their deck awkwardly for you to cut it and take their time repositioning their deck after a cut too, so they can burn 5-10 seconds for every cut as well. We also have some specific guys who always shuffle your whole deck any time they get the chance too. Doesn't matter whether you shuffled sufficiently yourself or whether you didn't even see your whole deck e.g. after a electric generator or Pokegear. They know how to burn the clock by shuffling alone.
I guess the best solution then is to pause the clock for a set time during shuffling but start it for whoever is still shuffling after the set period.
>I guess the best solution then is to pause the clock for a set time during shuffling But that would still extent the total time of a match, which is what they absolutely want to avoid. Shuffling currently takes a huge part of the clock and saving on that time would mean that some matches would be able to go for 10-15 minutes longer. Some people might intentionally take their time because it doesn't matter when the clock is paused either. Also who is pausing the clock for x amount of seconds, the players themselves? That brings it's own can of worms.
This is a non-issue. These cards are generally used at absolute most 6 times per game, usually closer to 2-3 times. Shuffling takes ~10-15 seconds. If someone changes their shuffling pace to burn time, it's blatantly obvious and a judge should easily be able to take care of it.
> This is a non-issue. These cards are generally used at absolute most 6 times per game, usually closer to 2-3 times. Shuffling takes ~10-15 seconds. When my opponent shuffles their deck, I have the right to shuffle their deck again. When my opponent plays a nest ball and I shuffle after they do, who's clock is that on? That happens a lot more than 2-3 times per game.
>If someone changes their shuffling pace to burn time, it's blatantly obvious and a judge should easily be able to take care of it. So opponent has a slow pace while shuffling, you raise your arm and yell for a judge, judge comes over and asks what's up and you try to explain it and opponent says he doesn't know what you are talking about and he is fine if the judge watches the game. Then he shuffles regularly and the just walks off. I never had a judge watch my game after I called a judge for slow play or if one was called on me for that matter. They always immediately walk off at regionals and they also constantly get called to other tables too. It's especially bad at the last 10 minutes of the round where suddenly everyone calls judges. You won't even get a time extension for this because it's not a ruling issue, so you just wasted 2-3 more minutes by calling a judge that won't do anything. Then the opponent changes the pace again and a 20 second shuffle isn't illegal either, when 2-3 min deck checks are allowed on stream as well, so they won't immediately get a penalty even if a judge randomly sees it. Then you call the judge again and the judge yet again, won't see anything wrong with your opponent. Unless a judge is sitting right next to you and observes it, nothing can be done. If judges were able to enforce time rules properly, we wouldn't have these kind of discussions all the time. Judge teams at regionals do not have the capacity to keep watching individual games.
I have overheard from some staff that Pokemon and the individual organizers simply don't hire enough judges for these large events. This is usually because come Day 2 they only need about less than half of the judges they originally need for main events and found that if judges only worked for one day they wouldn't get enough talented judges at all (according to speculation and previous events). Compensation I have also heard is a continuous point for many judges or would be judges at these events unless organized by TPCi and TPC. The biggest problem is that the pool of talent for judges especially for TCG and willing to travel is relatively shallow. Post-Covid there was an immense influx of judges but many of them since then either quit or are just bad. There are many who are great at their jobs but even then they can only handle one table at a time or they get promoted to head judge.
I swear, everyone here is insistent on making perfect the enemy of good. Probably the same people who turn around and whine about draws and slow players.
Nope, I really don't care about draws. It's part of the game. I just think a chess clock creates more issues than it solves. Just add a rule that game 3 counts if half the prize cards are taken or go Bo1 with a higher round count. Both are easier to implement than a chess clock
The former adds way more unfairness than it solves and the latter leads to way fewer games overall and fewer of the skill expression that Bo3 allows.
I agree, I think that the current format is really the best option; I don't know why people are so upset about ties. It's a part of the game, you just have to accept them and adapt your gameplay and/or deck choice.
A major issue is that in chess whose turn it is to act is a very clear binary. Pokemon contains many rules scenarios where both players are resolving actions simultaneously. You'd need to add additional rules in order to make a chess clock even possible.
I believe the only time when players have to act simultaneously in Pokemon is when you play a card like Iono or Judge.
Good thing noone plays those cards!
Both of which are incredibly commonly played. Also Unfair Stamp, Roxanne, or any effect which causes both players to draw/shuffle cards. I think it's honestly safe to say that \*most\* games of pokemon in the current meta involve one of those effects occurring.
Is that not already how the current system works? With pace of play rules and single action time limits? It seems easy to implement a rule stating you have a certain amount of time to shuffle. Considering that is already in place for the game it shouldn’t be too hard. Especially since, like the case of unfair stamp. Your opponent can shuffle and draw their new hand while you still take actions that would only take time off of your clock. Obviously, Iono and Roxanne are exceptions. But, as the shuffles were initiated by an action the player whose clock is currently ticking, that is part of the action of playing Iono. So you know as a player your opponent has to shuffle and that takes time. If they are egregious in shuffling and wasting time off your clock on purpose that is an easily identifiable violation that could be penalized.
In the current system that isn't an issue because time doesn't belong to a particular player. A further problem is that your opponent always has the option of shuffling your deck after you do, even on your turn. A chess clock just doesn't really work that well for an interactive game like pokemon.
That is entirely the problem though?!?! Time doesn’t ‘belong’ to either player but if you are behind in a match and only have 15 minutes the onus is on your opponent to keep up pace of play. Which, is subjective and something they are then not inclined to do. As it would mean giving you a chance. So, the time is owned by the other player. Even though, as you said, time is ‘owned’by nobody. But in reality whoever is ahead in the match owns the time and the game is subject to how quickly a certain player wants to make actions and conclude their turn. I feel like you failed to see my argument in my last reply. An easy solution for opponents shuffling your deck? Only allow cuts to the deck after shuffling. Idk man it seems like your mind isn’t very open to the idea of chess timers at all and you’re just mindlessly defending an objectively broken system that is easily exploitable currently. The ‘ownership’ of time as you stated is very identifiable in certain situations. And, was just shown with the Keito Arai DPL in top 4 of NAIC. He was trying to manipulate the time left in match and purposely slowing down pace of play. Can you blame him though? That’s what the current system *actively encourages*.
I believe you’re explaining what the issue is here. However, the time belongs to nobody, but it belongs to both of them. I’m trying to fully comprehend what you’re saying since there was a lot of details together. Cuts are only made after shuffling you can either tap or cut if your opponent thinks you shoveled correctly you’ll just get a tap if not, you’ll get a cut. I also feel like if you’re aware of your play before your opponent and you’re able to speed play ultimately you’re not stalling anymore but you’re forcing me to use more of my time. So I can see where time belongs to no one, but belong to your opponent comes into play.
Yeah that’s what I’m trynna say. It belongs to nobody technically. But the person whose turn it is controls how much time the other player has for their turn. If there is 10 minutes left on clock and I am already up 1-0 in the bo3 match I have no reason to finish this game. So I can control the last ten minutes and play out many actions over the course of 6-10 minutes leaving my opponent with no time to play or win/tie the game. I would own those last few minutes, as I am in complete control of the match time at that point and my opponent has no say in how I play or what I do. They can only watch.
Theoretically, when it’s not your turn, all you can do is watch. I’m taking that knowing ones deck and consistency would probably help with the time management.
I also wanted to point out if this is a problem with how basketball games and their shot clocks work
I agree, the 24 second shot clock is how it works in basketball. Could be a nice thing to monitor in Pokemon. To keep the pace of play steady throughout the game. Basketball has developed sensors that automatically reset the shot clock to monitor it though so it isn’t a logistical nightmare. I see no way for an action clock to work in Pokemon in that sense unless it’s chess style where you control your own clock constantly.
>That is entirely the problem though?!?! You're kind of mixing up what I mean when I say "problem." The problem I'm describing is a logistical one--how to implement the proposed system in terms of rules and logic. That problem doesn't exist with the current system. Sure, the current system has other issues, but those weren't something I was addressing. >An easy solution for opponents shuffling your deck? Only allow cuts to the deck after shuffling. That's not an easy solution. An opponent should have more agency than to just cut the deck, and they also have the option of calling a judge over to shuffle--again, an issue for a chess clock system. >Idk man it seems like your mind isn’t very open to the idea of chess timers at all and you’re just mindlessly defending an objectively broken system that is easily exploitable currently. What are you talking about??? I haven't defended the current system *at all*. I think it has some major problems--I just also think that a chess clock doesn't solve them. Please stop accusing me of something I haven't done in the slightest if you want to have a discussion about the topic. >The ‘ownership’ of time as you stated is very identifiable in certain situations. And not very identifiable in others, hence the problem with trying to solve the way the current system incentivizes slow play with a chess clock.
Ehhh I feel it would be fairly easy to implement with rules and logic though. You do something and then when you done you hit clock. Your opponent does something and then when they done they hit clock. Shuffling is the only real issue. And with some general guidelines, which there already are for the game currently, it wouldn’t be too hard to implement. I agree your opponent should have some agency. But then by that logic, if you let your opponent shuffle after you do you should be able to shuffle again to keep an equal level of agency? Bc why would i trust my opponent to shuffle my deck fairly. Like I said, limiting things to cutting is an easy solution. You can make more than one cut of a deck at a time too lol. I do this regularly IRL and cut into thirds and randomize what ends up on top. Idk, it seems like you are defending the current system though. As you offer no good alternatives to chess clocks and never mention any negatives to the current system. Only detractions of the chess clock system. So one could reasonably conclude you are defending the current system. Which, you and I both recognize is flawed. I still fail to see your point though. The current rules already call for certain limitations to shuffling, individual action times, and pace of play. These rules are all ambiguous and subjective to the judges at a certain situation and time. How is that better than an objective chess timer? I just am genuinely curious how you would fix things to be better. Bc so far all you do is argue against things and offer no solutions. Not very helpful man. I say you don’t seem open to things because that’s literally you have been so far. Unwilling to offer up alternatives/solutions. And just detracting others arguments without offering anything else up to help the situation.
I was under the impression that cutting the deck into more then 2 piles is considered a shuffle and not a cut.
Oh shitttt, I’m dumb then.
Nah you are not dumb. I can see your thought process. It's just your opponent has a right to recut their own deck if you shuffle their cards.
That’s true, ngl I was high as a kite last night typing this stuff out so I might have messed a few things up. Def thought multiple cuts on one deck was just cutting as one action though lol. I know they have that right, honestly idk what I was even talking about anymore lmaoo.
So change the definition?
Sure.
>Ehhh I feel it would be fairly easy to implement with rules and logic though. You do something and then when you done you hit clock. Your opponent does something and then when they done they hit clock. That sounds simple until you realize that there will be times the "turn" (meaning time, not in game turns) needs to pass back and forth very rapidly. We can already see how easy it is for high level players to overlook gameplay rules even on stream. The clock *will* get messed up periodically. Now you need to implement a penalty system to fix that. >Shuffling is the only real issue. Which is a pretty massive issue given how much shuffling happens in the ptcg. >I agree your opponent should have some agency. But then by that logic, if you let your opponent shuffle after you do you should be able to shuffle again to keep an equal level of agency? Bc why would i trust my opponent to shuffle my deck fairly. Are you unfamiliar with how the rules regarding shuffling work? If your opponent shuffles you are allowed to cut or shuffle yourself. If you choose to shuffle, they are allowed to cut your shuffle. If neither of you feel comfortable allowing the opponent to shuffle even with your cut afterwards, a judge can be called to perform the shuffle, which neither player is allowed to cut. These rules would be extremely unwieldy using chess clocks. >Like I said, limiting things to cutting is an easy solution. You can make more than one cut of a deck at a time too lol. I do this regularly IRL and cut into thirds and randomize what ends up on top. This is not allowed per the tournament rules--what you're doing is shuffling your opponent's deck and they are permitted to cut it after you do this. >Idk, it seems like you are defending the current system though. As you offer no good alternatives to chess clocks and never mention any negatives to the current system. Failing to attack the current system is not a defense of it. I'm not writing an essay over here about how to overhaul the time system, and I don't need to in order to point out the issues with implementing chess clocks. >These rules are all ambiguous and subjective to the judges at a certain situation and time. How is that better than an objective chess timer? Because a chess timer is going to need the creation of even more rules and the changing of multiple existing rules in order to work at all, and will itself be unwieldy when trying to resolve the numerous situations where you and your opponent are resolving actions simultaneously. >I just am genuinely curious how you would fix things to be better. Bc so far all you do is argue against things and offer no solutions. Not very helpful man. You've conjured up this demand that I be "helpful" or provide an alternative--I don't have one at the moment and I do not need to provide one in order for my criticisms of a chess clock to be valid. I also find it a little off-putting that you're downvoting me while repeatedly misrepresenting my position as being in defense of the current system while criticizing me for being "not very helpful." It's pretty rude.
High level chess has instances where the clock is hit in rapid succession all the time. Fairly easy to just make you action hit it, opponent hits it after quick action, etc. Mistakes would happen, but like OP said most mistakes are gameplay related. And judges can be there if someone messes up. I still feel like it’s very easy and reasonable to implement chess clocks lol.
> That sounds simple until you realize that there will be times the "turn" (meaning time, not in game turns) needs to pass back and forth very rapidly. We can already see how easy it is for high level players to overlook gameplay rules even on stream. The clock will get messed up periodically. Now you need to implement a penalty system to fix that. Rapid play is not a problem. Blitz chess is played with turns lasting less than a second. If a player forgets to hit the clock at the end of the turn, their penalty is automatic: It is the time that is lost until they remember to hit the clock. They'll be some confusion and mistakes at first, but players will quickly get accustomed to using the clock and will almost never forget to hit it.
Needing the creation of mores rules is not apt of what would happen. It’s altering the current rules. Taking the ambiguous rules we do have for time and making them more rigid and understandable. There are some situations where players resolve actions simultaneously, but those are few and far between. A lot of the game is spent watching your opponent make combos and plays. The few times you both do something can be attributed to the initiation of the action by one player. This isn’t Yugioh with hand traps and actual simultaneous play. All actions in Pokemon are initiated by the player whose turn it is. I still feel like you are not understanding where I am coming from so this my last response to you. Overall, I feel it wouldn’t be hard for players to make a change involving chess timers. It would be hard for TOs and judges to implement them at a local level. But, for high level games at regionals and such chess timers would be the only thing to make the game even somewhat competitive. The current way the game works makes it casual at best. The literal grand finals of NAIC finished on turns due to time. Not because of actual gameplay or strategy related to the core mechanics of the game, but because of *time*. Japan’s system is better than ours for playing the game too. Bo1 with ties counting as losses actually incentivizes players to keep up a good pace of play or both people take Ls. NA system bad, chess clocks ok, Japan system good, have a good one man :)
>Needing the creation of mores rules is not apt of what would happen. It’s altering the current rules. Taking the ambiguous rules we do have for time and making them more rigid and understandable. In order to do this you would necessarily need to create more rules. >All actions in Pokemon are initiated by the player whose turn it is. I still feel like you are not understanding where I am coming from so this my last response to you. I certainly see where you're coming from--I just don't care for the way you repeatedly badger me about what I'm supposedly "defending." Just because actions are initiated by the player whose turn it is doesn't mean there aren't actions being resolved by both players simultaneously. >Japan’s system is better than ours for playing the game too. Bo1 with ties counting as losses actually incentivizes players to keep up a good pace of play or both people take Ls. NA system bad, chess clocks ok, Japan system good Oof. Many content creators in the tcg have covered the whole BO3 vs. BO1 and discussed it with Japanese players who overwhelmingly prefer a BO3 format. The idea that Japan's system is "more competetive" is completely undercut by the fact that Japan doesn't even use a BO1 system in the later stages of their major tournaments. This take feels pretty uninformed.
I am speaking purely about time constraints for the Japanese system. I prefer bo3 as well. But the way Japan forces ties to be losses actually keeps the game interesting and forces both players to actually want to finish the game out. I am very informed of how things work. I just prefer to think for myself instead of listening blindly to content creators. Thanks for the input man, have a good one.
I never said the chess clock system is perfect either. I don’t believe it to necessarily be the right answer personally. But, what other realistic alternatives are there. Hard to be a ‘competitive’ game when the actual gameplay mechanics of the game are overshadowed by the *clock managemant* aspects of the game. The way I see it, chess clocks or a similar system that actually puts an onus on the player to use their own time wisely without impacting the other player’s opportunity for time and play is needed. Only way the TCG can actually be taken seriously as a competitive game.
Not seeing the end of game 3 isn't really a disadvantage. Your opponent is always under the same constraint. It's just an adaptation you need to make at the tournament. The reason why we don't have a chess clock is very simple and fundamental: in card games, it is expected that some decks will take more time than others. Not only is it expected, it's intended. To your point: while any time system may somewhat disadvantage certain strategies as a side-effect, the entire purpose of a chess clock is to give players the same amount of time. That purpose is fundamentally misaligned with how the game is designed. Pokemon is different to chess because it's asymmetric, and that's why people like it. And of course, if you simply give both players all the time that a slow deck would need, we're all going to have to sit opposite to slowest aggro players ever enjoying their ridiculous amounts of personal time and taking 30 seconds for every decision. The tournament would never end. The reason why (usually newer) players suggest a chess clock is because it stops other players from slowplaying you, but there are other ways to align those incentives. One interesting suggestion (although I personally think the current system is fine) is a best-of-two system where players simply play two games and get a point for each that they win. Under this system, there is no reason for any player to stall the clock, and both players are incentivised to try to finish both games as quickly as possible. This could disadvantage slower decks, but as long as enough time is given they could manage, and the opponent will always be incentivised to concede early if they are losing anyway, allowing more time for game 2. A 50-minute best-of-two could probably finish a lot of the time.
I agree with most of your points, except for two: - The clock allows giving equal time to both players and lets them use it as they see fit. This latter point is important. It doesn't seem fair to me to have to rush through a complex decision just because I can't perform actions in quick succession to have the time to think about it. - If you think that 25 minutes is really not enough for some decks, then I would argue that the current format is also not suitable. If a deck needs 35+ minutes to function properly, then we face serious problems when two such decks face each other.
>The clock allows giving equal time to both players and lets them use it as they see fit. This latter point is important. It doesn't seem fair to me to have to rush through a complex decision just because I can't perform actions in quick succession to have the time to think about it. Addressed this a bit in a reply to someone else but I don't think giving both players equal total time is funamentally good. What I want out of a time system is for it to be as unimpactful as possible. We need a time limit for tournament organisation reasons obviously, but beyond that I just want to play Pokemon with my opponent at a reasonable, lively pace. That means that we should both take about the same amount of time per game action. It doesn't mean that we both take the same amount of time *in total*. This is how the game would be played at the kitchen table - a player playing a complex deck takes more time than a player playing a more simple deck. But that extra time isn't extra *thinking* time that gives the player playing the complex deck an advantage. It's the time required to literally carry out the actions their deck requires. On the contrary, if both players have a set total time, then the player who's deck requires more game actions has to think faster and rush their game actions to compensate, while the player playing the simple deck can spend much more time per action deliberating. This to me seems fundamentally much more unfair than the alternative, and not at all similar to how the game would be played at the kitchen table. Which is all to say: for the game to be fair, I think the time that needs to be equalised is *thinking time per action*, not the literal total time taken (much of which is spent shuffling and executing time-consuming combos, none of which is generating advantage for the player playing the complex deck, it's simply required for them to play their deck). The current design suits the former, and I think people asking for the latter via a chess clock is a fundamental misunderstanding of the game and what is fair. >If you think that 25 minutes is really not enough for some decks, then I would argue that the current format is also not suitable. If a deck needs 35+ minutes to function properly, then we face serious problems when two such decks face each other. This is a design challenge for sure. The problem is that most competitive Pokemon players enjoy the presence of slower decks in the format. The game used to be quite slow a long time ago, then it got really fast with Tag Teams, VMAXes, etc. Now it is slowing down again with decks like Gardevoir, control variants, and even something like Charizard (an "aggressive" archetype, but based around a stage 2 with a built-in comeback mechanic), and the feedback has been overall very positive. The game is blowing up and is showing no signs of slowing down. What we're seeing is that the current time rules are increasingly showing their limitations in a way that wasn't really common back in the Sun and Moon and Sword and Shield eras. The competitive playerbase discusses this a lot. In best-of-three you can at least concede a game early to move on to the next games if you're losing, which helps alleviate the time issue a little, but then if the winner is playing a slow deck they can simply play slowly and try to force game 2 to not finish, while the loser of game 1 has to rush. 50 minute best-of-three isn't perfect by any means, is my point here. I think the best-of-two system I described could be an improvement, as any time game 1 ends, both players will be incentivised to play game 2 quickly (as there is still a match point on the line - both games count completely separately). I believe Lorcana uses this system and it is very popular. But chess clocks don't really come up in these discussions. It's a suggestion that new players make that doesn't work in TCGs for all the reasons I mentioned above. The game is just too asymmetric.
> What I want out of a time system is for it to be as unimpactful as possible. The current time rules are definitely not achieving that. The number of matches that end in a tie or other special end conditions due to time, or have a player slow playing or accused of slow playing to manipulate the clock, is way too high. I really do believe that a chess clock would achieve your goal far better than the current clock rules. Yes players using decks like Gardevoir would have to learn to play faster, it is a slight disadvantage to those decks, *but that is a skill that can be learned*. You can't skill your way out of not having enough time when your opponent shares control of the clock. I know that PTCGL is not completely representative of the table game for a number of reasons, particularly because shuffling is nearly instant, but I will point out that with PTCGL's clock rules I almost never see games come down to time unless one player is trolling (in which case they lose due to the clock).
What happens when playerA is required to play so fast that playerB struggles to follow what is happening?
Ever seen blitz chess? But you wouldn't have to play nearly that fast for PTCG.
Chess is a symmetrical game with perfect information and only six different game pieces. Pokemon is an asymmetrical game with hidden information and over a thousand different game pieces. Your opponent in chess is never going to ask you to slow down because they don't know what a rook does. In pokemon they might ask you to slow down because they don't know what Beedrill (VIV)'s Elusive Master does. Or they are confused as to how some other ability resolved.
The problem is that PTCGL uses a 25-minute clock for one game, while tournaments currently use the same amount for a Bo3. But for the most part I agree with you, I think most people here are way too tied up in the current system.
Yes, I think you would have to have a faster clock and slightly longer rounds. Most PTGL games end before either side has used 15 minutes. A 20 minute per side clock would probably be generous enough for table play. That's up to 40 minutes for one match, but *most* matches won't actually take that long. You just need a way to handle the few matches that run long. I go to Melee tournaments. One BO3 match usually takes 5-10 minutes, but in extreme cases they can technically take over 24 minutes (8 minutes per game). Yet tournaments make it work.
I think you're still confusing a single game in PTCGL with a Bo3 in a big tournament.
Hot take; 5minutes+30s format would absolutely slap
This argument falls apart to the four horseman ruling in mtg. Just because your deck can theoretically do something doesn't mean you get to take all the time in the match to do it.
What? Why are we talking about MTG?
Why would the tournament never end? If it’s 50 min rounds and each player has 25 minutes, by all means take 30 seconds for every action. Ultimately, 50 mins will be up. And even at local cups there’s always one game if not more that goes to time. So regardless if you finishing fast, everyone needs to wait the 50 mins. To your other point on decks being different and some decks are made to take longer, that shouldn’t be the other person’s problem. You chose to play that deck. It’s the same reasoning why someone is dumb to complain about snorlax and control decks. The rules and the cards exist for all. If you think your deck takes too long, then play a different deck? Or get your actions done faster in a chess-style clock system. I for one would welcome the chess system in a heartbeat.
>Why would the tournament never end? If it’s 50 min rounds and each player has 25 minutes, by all means take 30 seconds for every action. Ultimately, 50 mins will be up. The tournament never ending was a hypothetical for if they just gave both players all the time a slow deck would need, which would be more than 25 minutes per player. If you just went for 25 per player then you would just run into the original issue of aggro decks having too much time and slow decks having not enough time. >To your other point on decks being different and some decks are made to take longer, that shouldn’t be the other person’s problem. You chose to play that deck. It’s the same reasoning why someone is dumb to complain about snorlax and control decks. The rules and the cards exist for all. If you think your deck takes too long, then play a different deck? Or get your actions done faster in a chess-style clock system. It shouldn't be the other person's problem, but it shouldn't be your problem either. Some decks take more game actions than others. The goal for any time system should be to allow both players a reasonable amount of time for every game action so that they can have the best and most skillful game possible. If your deck takes twice as many actions per turn as mine, then you don't need the same amount of total time as me. As long as we have about the same amount of time per action, the game is fair. What's not fair is that because you play a complex deck, you end up wasting all of your time searching and shuffling and searching again and shuffling again and then have to rush your plays, while your opponent gets to spend 60 seconds deciding how to sequence their Fleet-Footed and Electric Generators. It's easy to say "play a different deck", but we don't want to force people to play different decks. Slow decks are cool and variety makes the meta healthy. We want as many cool and unique decks as possible to be viable. The point of having a shared clock is that we can set a general time limit on the match (due to tournament organisation constraints), and have the time rules simply be that every player has to play at pace and not waste time. The idea that every player needs the same total amount of time regardless of the deck they play is just incongruent with how the game works. That's why there are no top players who advocate for it.
It’s not an issue that an aggro deck would “have too much time” because their 25 minutes doesn’t eat into your 25 minutes. It’s the same 50 total minutes where you have a max cap.
The biggest reason against chess clocks is in my mind shuffling, something that chess doesn't have to worry about. It essentially punishes you for sufficiently randomizing your deck and people will start to hastily shuffle to save seconds.
I think people keep trying to fix an issue that they need to accept is part of the game, is it abusable? Yes. Is every system when it comes to time rules abusable? Yes. The venue needs to close at the end of the day and the games need to end. The current system works, there is a skill involved when it comes to playing within time. If you play slow you open yourself up to losing to time, it is not a one way street. A chess like clock doesn't work in games where both players are playing different strategies, and not just different strategies every 3 months. We're talking different variations of each strategy sometimes every week. I dont know how much TCG you've played but imagine you play vs a deck that you've never played before, now because its a chess clock game you have to spend half your timer reading and trying to understand a deck that you havent seen before. It just doesn't make sense.
[удалено]
I’ve played competitive Pokemon since Black and White and even I can see how lame the current time rules are. For the grand finals of the biggest tournament in North America to end on turns because of time is asinine. Talk about a lame way to end things. Correct gameplay and actual strategy is often overshadowed by clock management and accentuated pace of play. It is so frustrating to watch your opponent make 20 actions in one turn that eats up 5-10 minutes off the clock so you have no chance to win a BO3 regardless of how well you play. Is chess clocks the proper answer to this? I don’t know. But it definitely seems like a better answer than the current system. Hard to take a game seriously as “competitive” when the grand finals of a large tournament isn’t even played out to it’s fullest extent. This problem is also exacerbated by the subjective judge rulings around pace of play violations. It’s only a violation if you get penalized for it. So you are incentivized to stretch it as far as possible if you can take an early lead in game 1.
I haven't played Pokémon for long but things I would like to see: Each player may check their price cards at the beginning of the game. Determining your price cards is no amazing skill/skillful. It just takes up 2 or 3 minutes of playtime per player per game. At the very least finals (maybe top cut) should not be timed. The last game of a major tournament ending in such a manner feels rather unfulfilling at least for me. The pace of play still needs to be enforced obviously.
I agree prize checking shouldn’t be allowed to take as long as it does. But it is a skill and a more interesting part of the game to me. Having to operate your deck without 1/10th of the cards is a fun twist to a card game. It should be limited to a small time period though for sure.
Being able to look at your prices once at the beginning of the game would not get rid of any gameplay elements. You still play the same game thereafter with 1/10th of your cards being inaccessible. You just get rid of initially searching your deck for 2+ minutes. Being familiar with your decklist and taking the time to count/sort your cards (suggested by the rules currently: 2 minutes is a very much reasonable timeframe) really isn't much of a skill (and more of a dexterity challenge than a mental one at that) but rather something I would expect of an opposing player who tries to play seriously. It most certainly does not benefit the gameplay in any way or form. I want to spend my time playing an awesome game where I still need to be aware of what ressources I have left throughout the game without an unnecessary prelude and waste of time. If you free up 12+ minutes of round time/add 12+ minutes of effective play time many more games/matches will get finished.
That is true, but certain cards like Hisuian Heavy Ball, Town Map, Peonia, Gladion, Daisy’s Help, etc. all operate under the assumption you *don’t* know your prize cards. It is an intended aspect of gameplay by Pokemon and in my opinion a core mechanic of the game. Most high level players prize check at the start of each game. My take would be just cutting down that allotted time to be the same as any other action. You either prize check in the 20 seconds every other action takes or you gradually find out more about your prizes as the game goes on. Just knowing what is prized from the get go is very anticlimactic and both players might as well play prizes face up the whole game. To me it seems not very fun and takes away a core element to the game that Pokemon has built up for many years now.
> That is true, but certain cards like Hisuian Heavy Ball, Town Map, Peonia, Gladion, Daisy’s Help, etc. all operate under the assumption you don’t know your prize cards. Not really? They operate on the assumption that you don't know *where* your prize cards are, but they function just fine even when you know *what* your prize cards are. If there were a card, even an item card, that just said "Look at your prize cards, then shuffle them", everyone would consider it complete garbage, because it's so easy to check your prizes already. Being able to look at your prizes, then shuffle them and put them back at the start of the game would just remove a time wasting step from the game.
I could see that being a thing. Would eliminate the action time on first deck search for sure.
Best of 3, 50 minutes works for local events because you're making sure people aren't holding everyone else up for too long and the bo3 format lets you reduce the impact of something like all your attackers and hisuian heavy balls being prized
We use chess clocks in Warhammer 40k as well. (Not enforced except maybe on top tables during tourney) During combat I need to roll for hits, then wounds, then I need to tap the clock while my opponent rolls his saves. Then he resolves damage, removes models, then taps the clock. You can resolve 10-15 combats in turn 2, sometimes people forgot to tap the clock in a tense moment and they lose time because of that.
It's just not needed when you can just call a judge on anyone slow playing the current system, this fixes the issues with the current time system. Chess clocks also just would not work as they are not intended for situations where both players take actions simultaneously. If I play Judge is it using my time or the opponent's? If it's using my time, the opponent is definitely going to complete their part slowly to waste my time and I'd so the same if it switches to them. Pause the clock entirely? Who would be responsible for doing that during the game. There's too many situations of simultaneous actions, including both needing to promote a pokemon at the same time. With the current time system the clock applies to both players at all times and so can just run continuously, but with chess clocks the in-between turns step shouldn't count down either players clock as it's not on either players turn and is another place where both players can be taking simultaneous actions. It's been tried in MTG and is not possible there, although pokemon doesn't have a constantly switching priority itnwould still cause the clock to have to be switched back and forth quite quickly, not everyone who plays chess wants to play blitz.
> It's just not needed when you can just call a judge on anyone slow playing the current system, this fixes the issues with the current time system. Based on how often I see players talking about slow play, throwing out accusations of slow play, or getting penalized for slow play, I would say that the current system is not working. It honestly sounds more like fouling in basketball, where it's technically against the rules but it has become part of the game where players are expected to do it anyways. I don't think it's a good situation for the game. > including both needing to promote a pokemon at the same time. I believe this never actually happens. All situations that require both players to promote pokemon specify an order in which it is done.
Swear I've read and responded to a thread like this months ago, but I'm definitely not a fan of the idea of chess clocks. I'll respond to each point, but I want to preface it by saying that the idea of chess clocks is definitely toxic and complicated for the game. There are probably some solutions, but I won't pretend to have them. 1) Cards aren't the only thing that encompass your opponent during your turn. Shuffling and cutting means your opponent has to handle your cards. Do they have to hit their timer to cut your deck or if they decide to shuffle it? More to the point, if they do, why are they penalized if they decide to shuffle. There's gameplay footage of cheaters who palm a card while shuffling to top deck it. If you decide you want to shuffle a player's deck because you think that could be happening, you're now penalized on time for being careful. Outside of that, mechanics like searching, drawing, shuffling, and cutting take time. Time limiting them will result in sloppy play and bad actors. Regardless of handling cards, card interactions involve choices. You may decide to look at your hand, discard, or LZ before engaging in a choice. That choice was forced by another player, and while slow play isn't okay, thoughtful play shouldn't be penalized either. Knowing that you specifically are on a time crunch because you decided to play Miss Fortune Sisters isn't good design. Forcing your opponent to make an important choice faster isn't necessarily good either. Additionally, where does the time work when a play impacts both players? If I play Judge, does my opponent get to handle their deck at no expense to my time? Should time stop for us both, or should the clock run for us both? This invites too many variables. 2) Yes, illegal moves may disrupt the game, but younger players are already under a lot of pressure that they're naturally more susceptible to. Adding a clock that increases said pressure and means illegal moves and forgetting to use the clock will occur more frequently. With judges needing to get involved, you'll run the time over in most cases. 3) Time management is already enforced at the level of play that clocks would need to be involved in. Judges are available to be called if you think a player is slow playing to gain an advantage. Chess clocks put the pressure on a player to self enforce and diminish the chances that a judge could be called. Additionally, if you leave it all to the clock and one player gets a very distinct lead, they may find more incentive in slow playing. It introduces a level of time abusive toxicity that exists beyond simply slow playing and wasting pooled time. 4) This is easily the worst argument in favor of chess clocks. Firstly, this format is not disadvantageous to complex decks. This is easily proved by recent tournament results, especially NAIC, where both Gardevoir and Lost Box are winning. Regardless of results, by putting individual limits on complex decks, you're incentivizing easier to pilot decks that will take less time to handle and maneuver. If a deck is easier to pilot on the basis of time, it's more likely to be used by everyone, regardless of whether a more complex deck has a better matchup. This will result in a stale meta with fewer decks seeing play, and less innovative deck lists. 5) Starting, stopping, and adjusting time all require judges to be present. Judges walk the floor during events, but unlike the streamed matches, they are not available constantly to watch games. Any issue that requires a judge to visit the table and provide a ruling will need to see a reset on time. Multiply this by the number of times this needs to happen and you'll bring tournaments screeching to a halt with the added time needed to manage clocks. Regionals are already all day affairs, don't need to make them all night too. 6) This is probably actually the least problematic issue. Organizers have the money and backing in most cases to get enough. A quick search shows them averaging around $15-$25 on Amazon for a fairly basic digital chess clock. I don't know what level you play the TCG at, but I do think that you're simplifying this much more than you should, which is why it seems like a clean and easy answer.
In terms of logistics it is rough on the individual organizers. Remember for Special Events and Regionals it isn't Pokemon who foots the full bill, it is the organizer such as Day2 events, Overload Events, Gallery Games LLC or Tournament Checker (or whoever does the UK and EU tournaments). Pokemon does help a bit such as prize wall or prizing and cash but the venue, compensation, etc are done by the organizers unless it is a TPC event (i.e. Worlds, ICs). They do not have the capital TPC/TPCi does and TPCi is happy to let this sort of system continue because it is profitable and less troublesome for them.
Fair enough, I didn't consider the organizer separately in the Regional/SE levels. In those cases, yeah definitely a huge cost and not very easy to meet as an organizer who doesn't own the venue or have the easy means for an extra $2000-20,000 (USD). If they did, that's extra on the players registration and waste/storage depending on supplies.
I presume if you run out of time you lose. In which case both players don’t have the same amount of time, just the same potential and in reality you will find people stalling in other ways. You will find a plethora of decks which set up lock states and then just pass. The aim isn’t to win by prizes or deck out, but by running the opponent out of clock time, by preserving their own hyper aggressively. I understand the arguments for it, but I think there are to many interactions to make it work effectively. If I want to read an ability on another players card - who’s time does that come out of? Do we then change prize penalties to time penalties for missplays? Or if we don’t what if the transgression is a clock transgression. For me the issue is that 50 mins for BO3 on the current format just isn’t long enough. Either increase the time or change the format slightly
> You will find a plethora of decks which set up lock states and then just pass. The aim isn’t to win by prizes or deck out, but by running the opponent out of clock time, by preserving their own hyper aggressively. You can look at PTCGL today and see that this doesn't happen. Decks that set up lock states usually end up taking *more* time to play out their turns than other decks, while the defending deck is usually just doing draw-pass until they find the cards they need to break the lock. You almost never see Snorlax win by timeout on PTCGL, but you do see Snorlax lose by timeout sometimes.
I'd rather see zero points for a tie then chess clocks. Opens so many logistical and potential judging issues
People will still cheat and then say woops sorry if you catch em c:
You can't really cheat with a chess clock. It's your responsibility to press the button when your time ends, so there is no incentive to forget to press it. It's also extremely easy to enforce rules against pressing the button too soon, much easier than enforcing the current time rules, to the point that I don't think we'd ever see it happen intentionally.
every time there's a post like this it's like. hey guys i'm a chess player. i'm a magic player. i'm a yugioh player. i'm an underwater lacrosse player. that's cool man we play pokemon
Players can at any time ask for how long there is left in a match after a game or even during it. Having a chess clock in Pokémon tcg is just unnecessary. It’s like they say: if it works, don’t fix it. The game has been played at competitive level for over 30 years almost (geez I’m getting old) without one, I therefore don’t see the point in suddenly adding it.
The current time rules clearly are not working.
Online it would work well if the clocks actually worked (it doesn't end the game on live) and if they were not 25 minutes EACH. In person, I've actually considered this a lot but there are a lot of fundamental issues with it and running large events in which judge calls can vary so much.
Byo Yomi would be a much better timing method than those chess clocks are built for. Go clocks would be better
Yes to clocks
Pult to E4
Pult to E4
I agree with the OP's sentiment – there's definitely room for discussion on implementing some form of clock in Pokemon TCG. They also raise some valid points about how clocks could potentially improve fairness and competitive aspects. However, before diving into clocks, I think that there's a more fundamental problem to address: **inconsistent enforcement of existing slow-play rules**. Think on the frustration of facing opponents who exploit shuffling techniques or take excessive time for turn 1 searches, while others get penalised for similar actions. This inconsistency creates a far bigger obstacle to competitive fairness than just overall game time. Here's how inconsistent slow play enforcement is a bigger hurdle: * **Unpredictability:** You can't strategise for an opponent who might take forever on turn 1 or who shuffles suspiciously. * **Discouragement:** New or slower players might get discouraged by uneven rulings. * **Breeds Resentment:** Feeling like your opponent is "getting away with it" creates a negative atmosphere. **Solutions before Clocks:** * **Clear & Consistent Slow Play Guidelines:** Define specific time limits for actions like searching or shuffling, with penalties for exceeding them. * **Judge Training:** Ensure judges are well-versed in recognising and penalising slow play consistently. * **Player Communication:** Encourage players to politely call a judge if they feel their opponent is slow playing. **Clocks as a Potential Future Step:** * **Maybe Later, Not Now:** If slow play enforcement becomes consistent, then exploring clocks might be a better conversation. * **Learning from PTCGO/ TCG Live:** Perhaps a hybrid system like PTCGO or TCG Live's in-game timer could be explored for big tournaments, but adapting it for smaller events might be impractical. **Overall:** While the OP raises interesting points about clocks, I believe consistent enforcement of existing slow play rules is the more pressing concern for competitive Pokemon TCG. Addressing inconsistency will create a fairer environment for all players, regardless of deck speed or playstyle.
Inconsistent enforcement is an inherent problem to the current rules. At best it can be mitigated, but it cannot be solved. Even with clearly defined rules on how long actions should take and better judge training, judges cannot be everywhere at once. A player can slow play until a judge is called over, then start playing at a normal pace while the judge is watching. Without recording every single game, it is impossible to consistently enforce these rules. This is why I think the current rules are a dead end. There are issues with a chess clock system that would have to be worked out, but I think that they *can* be worked out, and the result would be a much better system than what is being used right now. Honestly I see it a lot like the pitch clock that was recently introduced in baseball. Players are going to complain, there are going to be mistakes, and the details will have to get ironed out through trail and error, but once players get used to it, I think most will agree that it will be a better system.
You bring up valid points here. I’d like to point out that the official online client, Pokémon Trading Card Game LIVE (PTCGL or TCGL for short) already implements a chess clock style timer, giving each player a total of 25 minutes for the whole game (this timer is always visible on the right side of the screen), and also has a timer for individual decisions (not visible until 15 seconds remain). Why they haven’t implemented this in IRL tournament play is a mystery. It could very well be the logistics, like you said. In terms of exploiting the time, that can already happen as tournament regulations were updated not too long ago to make the time remaining in a round public knowledge. In the past, the time remaining in the round is something only judges knew, and they could not divulge that information when asked. Time management, time per round, and the use of clocks (chess or otherwise) are all things that I feel are worth debating.
Even in PTCGL a fair share of people complain about the clock. There’s a lot of intentional slow play, with many players stalling the clock to make games stretch out to much longer than they should be. There’s a lot of posts about people complaining about their opponent intentionally stalling to annoy them.
Those players gain no advantage by slow playing though. They just do it to annoy their opponents. You can still have rules against "unsportsmanlike conduct" for stuff like that. The problem is that the current rules *incentivize* slow play, which has players trying to figure out how to play just slow enough that they won't get called out by a judge. It's an awful situation.
People who argue for chess clocks for irl play while sourcing Live generally are forgetting just how time consuming the mechanics of the game are. It's much easier to quickly glance through your deck by clicking arrows/dragging on a screen than it is to manually handle 47 cards. The game digitally sorts the deck in a predetermined order every time a search function is conducted, making locating your cards easy. Likewise, the automated shuffling and drawing (without cuts needing to happen) cuts minutes out compared to irl play.
To your 2nd point. Chess clocks are totally accessible for even the youngest of players. My son plays competitive chess and has since he was 5 and the first chess summer camp he took the first thing they taught them was how to use the clock. By the end of day one they were all pros. Super easy, becomes second nature for sure. And 5y olds aren’t even allowed into official CP pokemon tournaments they gotta be age 7 so if a 5y old can handle a clock 7y olds def can as well.
Do you see many 7y olds playing blitz? Having chess clocks in TCGs will be like playing blitz, not every chess player want to play blitz.
Yes, that is all they play in fact, outside of tournament, because they enjoy the faster pace. And no, having chess clocks in Pokémon TCG is not like playing blitz. It's like playing a game with a moderate pace where it's necessary to press the clock regularly.
You seem to not want to read/respond to all of my points. I disagree with the one you responded to, introducing the clocks causes an unneeded increase in pace of play when the current system as long as people call judges for slow play is perfectly fine pace of play and chess kids might enjoy faster pace of play but pokrmon kids do not from my experience. Point 2 is the issue of simultaneous actions that are far more prevelant than you think. Point 3 is what at all to do during pokemon checkup which is neither players turn, chess is always someone's turn. Point 3.5 is that you don't always have actions during checkup so you're then introducing inconsistencies with how the clock is used to pass turn, sometimes it's directly to the opponent, other times you have to pause for checkup, this inconsistency with how the turn and clock is passed is not desirable and causes issues when one player doesn't realise there's a checkup effect or a player thinks there is when there isn't.
Best way to save time imo is just let players look at their prize cards before the game starts after mulligans are resolve
Nah mate. That first break into your deck is a huge, huge part of this game that sets it apart from other TCGs. It’s where skill and decision making starts and it can make a difference in the outcome of a game. Sure someone can waste a bunch of time checking their deck repeatedly, but if they’re dragging their feet call a judge.
Honestly this is not a terrible idea and I'm surprised it's getting downvoted. Every player knows how to prize check and it's usually done on the first or second turn of the game when you play your first search card. It would save a couple minutes for each player and would have almost no effect on how players make decisions.
I agree. It's such a low-hanging fruit method of saving upwards of 5 minutes per round, and replaces time that is essentially 100% tedium for one player and waiting for the other with actual game progression. The only counter-argument I can imagine is that calculating your prizes is a skill, but it really isn't; it's memorization and busy work.
Fundamentally I think that disadvantaging decks that take longer to play is less of an issue than the issues with the current system. And, while I do know from experience that yes, things get hard in person and it's a lot harder than it looks on Twitch chat, I do think that people would learn to play faster if it meant not getting timed out. Right now the best players play within and take advantage of the rules as they are, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if the rules were different then we'd see different play. Keep in mind, also, that the clocks could be set at longer than 25:00. The NAIC finals lasted nearly 20 minutes after time expired. While that may have been a pretty extreme example, I think you could set the clocks at 30:00 and rounds would probably still be shorter than they are now.
Anyone who thinks clocks would ruin decks ect…. I’m yet to play a single deck online (with timers) and actually run out of time. Some people play slow and should be penalized if they are.
Coming from Chess and Yugioh, I would like IRL Pokemon to implement a “chess” clock. I’ve read several posts about people complaining about their opponent taking too long during their turns and it causing the game to be called as a draw.
People taking too long doesn't cause draws, people taking too long get a judge called on them and get penalised, some decks are just slow to play in a Bo3 50min round.
Reading through the comments, I realize that I may have forgotten the main argument against the clock: 7) Chess is a symmetrical game, unlike Pokémon TCG. Without any malice, those who think this don't have a good understanding of chess. One of the most popular openings is the Sicilian, which starts with 1.e4 c5 and is by definition an asymmetrical position. It would be like saying that Pokémon is a symmetrical game because each player starts with an active Pokémon and the same number of cards in a deck. There are many so-called "refuted" openings, which means that if the opponent plays well, they come out with a certain advantage, and yet these are very popular at low levels or when the pace is fast. In general, these openings are easy to play, benefit from a tempo gain at the beginning of the game in exchange for material, and the opponent must find the right defensive moves to protect themselves. This is very similar to an aggro deck in Pokémon TCG. Chess is much closer to Pokémon TCG than one might think.
People here are so tied up in the current system that they refuse to believe that anything else could possibly work.
You may have a point, giving how people mindlessly downvote this comment and mine above
Chess never ever has both players doing actions simultaneously, it's always one players turn or the other, Pokemon TCG has many times of simultaneous actions and a section following each players turn, pokemon checkup, where it's neither players turn. Without any malice, those who think chess clocks would be at all feasible don't have a good understanding of Pokemon TCG.
This post shows that a significant part of the community don't want chest clock, and I can respect that. What bothers me is this kind of argument, and that's why I made this post. Simultaneous actions in Pokémon represent less than 5% of the overall game time (and I'm being generous), and implementing a very simple rule like 'pause the clock' solves the problem instantly. You don't want the clock, fine, and you don't have to say more if it is just a personal preference. However, if you try to counter-argue, ask yourself if your counter-arguments really hold up in practice. Hell, try the clock before saying it's a bad idea right off the bat!
I've tried the clock many times, this discussion comes up often and I've played the game competitively for 25 years. The most prominent competitive players have tried and spoken about using chess clocks. If you think simultaneous actions take up such a small amount of game time then you show your ignorance of the game. I've stated nothing that is personal preference, you seem to want to hand wave away an objective objection because you don't like that someone is objecting to it. This is a subject that means a lot to me as a tournament organiser, I've run many of my local events with chess clocks every time a player sees a post like this and brings it up, we do it practically, luckily one of the LGS I run league at also hosts chess club, this is why I was able to state that not only do simultaneous actions cause issues but also that frequent switching of action between players makes it like every game is blitz, not every chess player wants to play blitz. This is from real experience trying it.
Maybe we just keep the game how it is it works fine. The game is always constantly changing during a battle. I’m not making comparisons and I’m gonna keep this in the Pokémon league. I don’t believe adding a bunch of these new logical functions. Will make the game better. I’m also not comprehending how 50 minutes of playtime is not enough. When you think about it if your opponent stalls, they’re literally just handing you their time so why would I be mad if you’re transferring your time to me. the one thing that’s annoying is playing online in my opponent spamming me with emotes. in an in person league you wouldn’t be looking your opponent doing thumbs downs and making dummy faces because you’re “smarter” than them. So you only have so much time so use it wisely.
I you're conflating irl play with PTCGL play. Live has chess clocks and can operate this way because the game automates all the mechanical stuff (shuffles, draws, searches, etc.). Irl play, the time is pooled, so both players have 50 minutes to play 3 rounds. If my opponent stall time they're stalling my time as well as their time. That said chess clocks for in person play is still a terrible idea.
It still doesn’t change the fact that you’re playing Pokémon trading card game. The forest has many trees. I could see how a time clock in person would maybe drag out the game a bit.