Alright kiddies, while I'd love to have personal quarrels all day long, I'm much more interested in actually discussing how to read and understand rules. Therefore, without further ado, I'll continue to explain what the rules say.
I don't understand the choose an alternative attack proposal. I can see why posters wish to introduce it but I think the case for allowing an alternative attack is much weaker than either of the other two options.
I can see that you don't understand it. Maybe I have only explained it in parts, and therefore have not made the reason concise.
The reason the "choose an alternative attack proposal" is correct is because that's how the rules are written. We have the "can't happen, didn't happen" rule that we go by, which means that the "fizzle" idea is impossible to implement. The "rewind" idea is actually what makes the "alternative attack proposal" work, along with the "can't happen, didn't happen" rule. The attack "can't" happen, so it "didn't" happen. Where does that put us? It puts us at the beginning of the Attack Step. That's where it's rewound to, and in the Attack Step you declare just what attack you're going to try and use, therefore, if you're at the beginning of the Attack Step, then you have not yet declared which attack you're going to try and use yet (because the last attack "couldn't" have happened so it "didn't" happen), thus allowing you to declare an attack (which can be different from the original illegal attack).
I hope that makes it clear enough to understand why this is the correct option.
no matter which way you cut it, without the rewind, it looks like a Loss of attack Penalty.
Looks can be deceiving. I could look like a female, but as long as I've got my Steelix ex, I'm clearly not female.
In case you missed the reason that it is not a "loss of attack" penalty, here it is again.
The judge himself (or herself) gives no actual penalty (other than maybe a Caution or Warning). The very rules and mechanics of the game itself are what dictate the appearance of a "loss of attack". The rule "can't happen, didn't happen" is what prevents the first attack from following through the rest of the turn, which leaves the current turn at the beginning of the Attack Step. Since you are in the Attack Step, you can't play any more cards or use any other Powers. The choices you now have, based on the rules of the game, are to attack or pass. If you don't have a valid attack at this point, then you must pass, based on the rules of the game. Therefore, as you can see, the judge has not had to say a single word, this is merely just what happens. The judge only enforces the rules that are already part of the game, the judge isn't just making this up out of nowhere.
I am in favor of letting the errant player do a lesser attack. It's how I ruled when this seemed to first come up last November. Now if I wanted to be real literal I could take the following line from the rule book and apply it...
Under the "Let's Play" section -
3 ATTACK!
When you attack, you place damage counters on your opponent's Active Pokemon (also called the "Defending Pokemon"). This is the last thing you can do during your turn. You are only allowed to attack once during your turn (if your Pokemon has 2 attacks,it can use only 1 of them each turn). Say the name of the attack you are using, and then follow the rest of the steps below.
Now if this were to happen again I might rule that the rulebook states you can only attack once per turn. If you call an attack without the proper energies then it's a too bad for you.
The only part you are forgetting is the "can't happen, didn't happen". Therefore, there never was an attack performed, so if they perform an attack at this point, it is actually the first and only attack they have performed.
I feel that we are trying to become Rule Wizzards here and to me that is also gaming.
How is merely playing by the rules of the game "gaming"? So if my opponent draws two cards at the beginning of the turn and keeps playing and I say "hey, you drew an extra card" and they say, "so?" and keep playing and I call a judge over and let him know, that's "gaming"? I'll make sure then to inform anyone that replies in the Ask The Masters forum that they are "gaming" anytime they answer a rules question. >_< These are merely the rules of the game.
CameraMan, "successful attack" isn't the phrase I'd use, because of all the things that might alter the outcome of an attack (ie., Safeguard, Agility, Smokescreen, confusion, etc). I just call it a "completed" Attack step.
But, I think you're on the right track. A "completed attack" means your turn is over. If you don't have the right amount or kind of energy, you can't possible "complete" your attack, because of the misplay. The Penalty Guidelines state to reset misplays. To me, that means the attack never occurred, so the play resumes to the point before the attack (playing cards, using powers, retreating, etc.)
You're correct, the attack never occurred because of "can't happen, didn't happen", so we rewind back to the last correct situation. The player went from Step 2 to Step 3 (the Attack Step) just fine, there was nothing wrong with that, so they have "successfully" entered the Attack Step, so they don't get to rewind to before that part since there was nothing wrong with it. You wouldn't rewind to before they played their supporter would you? No, because there was nothing wrong with them playing their supporter. Same situation here.
If I use Swampert ex's Poke-power while my opponent shuts off my Poke-powers, do I lose my turn? I would have performed an illegal action that ends my turn. Therefore, it would have been like saying that my turn is over, right? Obviously I wouldn't get the energy. Or, since it couldn't happen, maybe the turn shouldn't end because of it? Even though you had inferred that I was done with my "Let's Play! phase" by using this power. But wait! I was only really done if I could use my Poke-power. If I can't use the attack I want to use, then I'm not done with my "Let's Play! phase" no matter what you infer from my actions. The only thing I imply is that is the attack/power I wish to use. Anything else is inferred by my opponent. I'm only done with my turn when I can use the attack that I want to use that I know I can use.
Ah but look at your example again. Lets see what actually happens in this situation.
You are currently in Step 2 of your turn (since you're using a power you have to be), and you use Swampert ex's power while your opponent has a Cessation Crystal in play (lets give names to the reasons why things can't happen). Since you "couldn't" have used the power, you "didn't" use the power, so you rewind to just before you used the power. Where does that put you? It puts you still in Step 2, where you can still do any of the actions from Step 2, such as playing a Windstorm so that you can legally use your power.
When you use an illegal attack, it puts you back to right before you used the attack, at the beginning of the Attack Step. Therefore, you can't play a trainer that would let you attack, since you are not in Step 2, which is the only place you can play a trainer.
You don't rewind back to Step 2 for the same reason you wouldn't rewind back to Step 1 (the Draw Step) if you immediately used Swampert ex's power at the beginning of your Step 2.
Therefore, your example (while correct) does not apply to the situation that we are discussing.
It appears most of the posts after my last quoted one are not actually discussing the rules, so I have no reason to comment on any of them. This should bring us back to the actual point of the topic.
