double, triple, and rotation battle in the TCG.

[signofzeta]

I know that the double battle and tag battles actually exist in the TCG, but has anyone tried to do a triple battle and a rotation battle much like the triple and rotation battles in the games?

I think that TPCi should release preconstructed decks that best illustrate how Triple and Rotation battles work in the TCG, and the cards within are designed SPECIFICALLY for this type of gameplay, as such, there might be a card that has an attack that says, does 20 damage to target pokemon and the one adjacent to it.

For the triple battle, the difference between that and the normal way is that the bench capacity is 3. You still have 6 prizes, and you have 3 pokemon out at the same time. You MUST attack the pokemon directly across from yours and any pokemon adjacent to it. Other than that, the rules for this is similar to the rules that TPCi already has for double battles.

For rotation battles, the bench capacity is also 3. You place your active pokemon in a way that it forms a triangle, with the top of the triangle the one attacking. When you rotate your pokemon, you actually have to rotate it, so the motion of the cards form a circle. That means if you put your top pokemon to the bottom left, the bottom left one has to go to the bottom right, and the bottom right must go on top. When you attack, it only damages the pokemon that is closest to you on the opponent's side of the field. You may rotate during your turn, and during your opponent's turn. Rotation does not get rid of confusion, sleep, and paralysis. Poisoned and Burned is checked on all 3 active pokemon. Paralysis, sleep and Confusion is only checked on the active pokemon on top of the triangle.

I haven't done any playtesting yet, and I am trying to mimic the rules as closely as possible to the games. I also want you to come up with how you would simulate triple battles and rotation battles in the TCG, since you probably know more about the game than I do.

 

[PMJ]

Rotation battles can't work in the TCG because your opponent can choose to rotate on the same turn you attack/rotate.

 

[signofzeta]

Rotation battles can't work in the TCG because your opponent can choose to rotate on the same turn you attack/rotate.

I already said that you can rotate during your opponent's turn. I don't understand how that doesn't work. The only times you are allowed to rotate are:

During your turn, after you draw your card and before you attack.

During your opponent's turn, after your opponent draws his card, and before the opponent attacks. The opponent MUST allow you to set up your rotation before he/she is allowed to attack.

The only point in time when you are NOT allowed to rotate is after your opponent attacks and before you draw your card, or after you attack, and your opponent draws his card. I believe in this time frame, is the time when the sleep, paralysis, poison, and burned conditions are checked.

As a result, both players are rotating at the same time. I guess there could be a main phase, then rotation phase, then second main phase, then attack phase, where in the main phase, you play energies, trainers, and the normal stuff that you do.

Apparently for Pokemon TCG players, doing things on your opponent's turn is too complex for them, because the only thing you do during your opponent's turn in this game is place damage counters on your pokemon. That's all you do, so with rotation battles, it provides a way to "do something" during your opponent's turn.

 

[PMJ]

In the games, the rotation command is given and then attacks are done. It's not known if your opponent is going to rotate until it's too late to take it back. This can't happen in the TCG because there's no way to submit your rotation order without your opponent knowing you're going to rotate, which would give a player knowledge of whether or not he should also rotate.

If I have Charmander active vs opponent's Bulbasaur, my opponent is probably going to rotate before I attack. But if he rotates to Squirtle, anticipating this, I can choose to rotate to Bulbasaur after he rotates, because I still have not attacked. If he doesn't, well, I guess I can just stick with Charmander and hit him for double damage.

Also nice jab at the TCG players; how about we keep this discussion civil?

 

[signofzeta]

How about if your opponent rotates as a response to your attack? So you say that in the games, you rotate, and you don't know when your opponent will rotate. So to simulate this in the card game, rather than only having your opponent rotate during your turn in the designated rotation phase, the opponent is allowed to rotate in response to an attack, only if your opponent hasn't rotated in the designated rotation phase. Simple.

You not knowing if your opponent is going to rotate as you call out your attack, check.

Even if you say it doesn't work in the TCG, in the first post, I said that you or any poster in this thread should find a way to make it work. In double battles, the rules for the TCG say that one pokemon attacks one of your opponent's pokemon. Then it's your opponent's turn. In the games however, if you have 2 fast pokemon, and your opponent have 2 slow pokemon, then both your pokemon are going to attack before your opponent's pokemon could attack, which is not what happens with double battles in the TCG.

To achieve the charmander, squirtle, and bulbasaur combination, you'd basically have to play a 3 energy deck. There is less of a chance of drawing one of each energy than drawing 3 of the same if you played a mono energy deck, so building up a team that backs up another team member isn't guaranteed to happen.

It is also a fact that in the games, when you sub out, there is a higher chance that your opponent will attack first. In the TCG, it isn't like that. When you retreat, you are guaranteed to attack first, and the fact that when you retreat, your turn doesn't end. So even if your opponent knows that you are going to rotate is something that the TCG has to have, even if the game has attacking user rotation confidentiality.

What I'm basically trying is, how would you design rotation battles for the TCG, and the way I did it isn't perfect, which is why I need some input.

And remember what Loverboy says doesn't apply in this thread, because if it did, then the TCG wouldn't exist.

why don't you turn me loose
turn me loose
turn me loose
You gotta do it my way
or no way at all

 

[NoDice]

The only way it would work is to only allow rotation during your turn or in between turns but not both or not during your opponents turn. Also, the only reason "nothing besides placing damage counters" happens during an opponents turn is because TPCi hasnt designed any "counter" cards yet (aside from old Poke powers or something perhaps?) like MTG and YGO has had forever. It has nothing to do with "too complex", but has to do with how this card game has been designed by TPCi.

 

[signofzeta]

The only way it would work is to only allow rotation during your turn or in between turns but not both or not during your opponents turn. Also, the only reason "nothing besides placing damage counters" happens during an opponents turn is because TPCi hasnt designed any "counter" cards yet (aside from old Poke powers or something perhaps?) like MTG and YGO has had forever. It has nothing to do with "too complex", but has to do with how this card game has been designed by TPCi.

Perhaps with rotation battles, you can only rotate during your turn, which isn't what really happens in the games, but c'mon, there are a lot of things in the TCG that doesn't happen in the games. But anyway, they could print a trainer card specifically designed for rotation battles that says, "you may rotate your pokemon in response to an opponent's attack. Another way you could do it is to leave rotation to random chance. You may choose to flip a coin. Heads rotates it clockwise, and tails rotates it counterclockwise.

I also think that there should be trainer cards that can be played in response to an opponent's action. Perhaps make a new type of trainer card that can be played during your opponent's turn. I think that TPCi should create those kinds of cards. Every time it is my opponent's turn, I do nothing but add damage counters on my pokemon after an attack. During your opponent's turn, you don't think. I think that TPCi needs to design cards that makes you have to think during your opponent's turn. Should I play this card in response to an attack, or play this card in response to opponent playing this card etc.

Even if Pokemon TCG players doesn't think that playing cards during opponent's turn is complex, TPCi doesn't think that's the case, or else we would have cards that can be played during opponent's turn by now. Normally TPCi gets all the TCG stuff from the Japanese who created the TCG, so I think that The Pokemon Company in Japan needs to explore this unexplored design space. Magic explores unexplored design spaces, some of which work and some of which fail, all the time, and I think that Pokemon TCG should do the same, to keep the game new every year. They already did it with multi energy attack pokemon. Well they did it before, but this time, they created a new frame for it, and called it the dragon type. I think from now on, all dragon types with the gold frame will have multi energy attack, and there will be no more multi energy type pokemon that isn't a dragon type. So when someone looks at a dragon card, they can say, oh hey, this card requires 2 or more different energy, and that dragon cards don't work on mono energy decks.

If I were to compare this to magic, it would go like this.

Creature = Pokemon
Land = Energy
Sorcery = Trainer Item
Legendary Enchantment or Artifact = Trainer Stadium
Artifact - Equipment or Enchantment - Aura = Trainer Item Pokemon Tool
Instant = ???

 

[raw19]

If I were to compare this to magic, it would go like this.

Creature = Pokemon
Land = Energy
Sorcery = Trainer Item
Legendary Enchantment or Artifact = Trainer Stadium
Artifact - Equipment or Enchantment - Aura = Trainer Item Pokemon Tool
Instant = ???

Instant = Power-Spray, which all SP decks had last format. Frankly, i'm perfectly happy not having cards that let me do stuff on my opponent's turn in Pokemon and if they make another deck-exclusive 'Instant'' i'll probably quit this game.

I'm not sure of the best way to make triple-battles/rotation battles work in the TCG. I do think it's an interesting idea, though, and feel that NoDice probably had the best suggestion. Whether it's one of those two or some other new kind of format/play-style, i hope that TCPi continues to make new and interesting things for this TCG.

 

[Dork Void]

Why would you limit total bench space to 3 in a triples battle? In the game, you still get 6 Pokemon, just 3 that can attack; so following the way doubles was introduced, you'd have 3 active, 3 benched, and you can choose to attack with one of your active Pokemon against any foe across or 45 degrees from it, and all of them can retreat and do anything else an Active Pokemon can.

Rotation I'd say is trickier since the tcg already has that in a way-you can retreat and play Switch on the turn you attack. The simplest way I can think to make it would be 1 active, 2 front line benched, and 3 back line benched. Once during your turn you may switch your active with a front line benched without using up your retreat for the turn or anything. Retreating and cards like Switch can still only be used on the active-therefore, you can't rotate to one of your back line benched and have to retreat with your active, just like in the games you'd have to switch your active.

 

[signofzeta]

Why would you limit total bench space to 3 in a triples battle? In the game, you still get 6 Pokemon, just 3 that can attack; so following the way doubles was introduced, you'd have 3 active, 3 benched, and you can choose to attack with one of your active Pokemon against any foe across or 45 degrees from it, and all of them can retreat and do anything else an Active Pokemon can.

You are allowed a maximum of 6 pokemon on your side of the field. You MUST have 3 active pokemon. So what is the maximum amount of pokemon allowed on the bench?

By your logic,

Maximum Bench Space > 3
Active pokemon = 3
Total Pokemon < or = 6

Flawed logic there buddy.

 

[Dork Void]

Where did I say greater than 3 benched? I said 3 benched. 3+3=6...

 

[signofzeta]

Where did I say greater than 3 benched? I said 3 benched. 3+3=6...

Then why ask "why would I limit bench space to 3"?. There's your answer, unless that is, you were actually agreeing with me, and was asking some other person who doubts the claim that the limit shouldn't be 3 in a bench.

But the fact stands that I think it is time for the Pokemon TCG to have new ways to play the game. Magic has the normal way, 2 headed giant, free for all, vangaurd, planechase, archenemy, and commander.

I think that whatever battle, that is, regular, team, double, triple, and rotation, that is in the games should be represented in the TCG. Nothing is impossible, or the TCG wouldn't exist.

For the rotation battles, I was also thinking about the pyramid thing too. One in the top row, 2 in second row, and 3 in the final row, which would be your bench. I am also thinking that you have a marker on your side of the field that tells you if you can rotate it or not, such as a coin for example. You are to lay it with the heads face up. That means you can rotate. When you rotate, you have to turn over the coin so that the tails side is face up. That means you used up your rotation and that you can't rotate anymore. You can rotate anytime, even during your opponent's turn, but once you rotate, you have to wait till after you draw the card, which is when the coin turns over back to heads facing up again.

This allows you to make it so that you either want to rotate to your best attacker, or save it so that you can rotate to your best defender as a response to an attack. The idea rock paper scissors rotation does not happen, unless you are playing a 3 energy deck, and setting up a grass, fire, and water pokemon in your rotation isn't as simple as it is in the TCG compared to the games.

Resetting the rotation status at the start of your turn isn't hard either. Magic players have been untapping lands for the past 19 years, and they don't have a problem with it.

Another thing I would like to add that is different from the games is that you don't necessarily have to have 3 active pokemon. The reason I say this is getting 3 pokemon in your opening hand is tough. I guess I could bend the rules of the triple battle and say that you can have either 1, 2 or,3 active pokemon at one time, where the first pokemon MUST be in the center position, just so that you don't have to have 3 pokemon in your opening hand, so people don't have to reshuffle and redraw all the time. It is just that your opponent is allowed to have 3 on his side, and you have 1, which means, you get triple teamed, and you are screwed. But if you do have 1, the next pokemon you have must be active, and not put on the bench. You could wait for a better dude, but then again, your one pokemon will be triple teamed.

 

[Dork Void]

Then why ask "why would I limit bench space to 3"?. There's your answer, unless that is, you were actually agreeing with me, and was asking some other person who doubts the claim that the limit shouldn't be 3 in a bench.

Oh, I'm sorry. I mistyped. I meant why limit the total of Pokemon in play on each side to 3, make it 3 active and 3 benched instead of 3 active 0 benched.

I also agree that 3 actives at once is hard...perhaps start with 1-2 actives and then all basics you play become active until you have 3 active, then you can start playing them to the bench?