A HORRIBLE HORRIBLE states ruling

[NoPoke]

I think I need to find the Monty Python quote about the definition of an argument. Some of the positions are so entrenched the thread is in danger of being little more than a long winded POLL.

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.

Fizzle or full rewind. Both cases have merit. I don't particularly like either alternative as neither is completely problem free. I'm still with BDS, PokePop, and all the other Full Rewinders. That still looks best to me. or should that be least worst?

no matter which way you cut it, without the rewind, it looks like a Loss of attack Penalty.

Perhaps we need to construct a scenario for presentation to PCL? It should be possible to dream up some sort of Turn 2 scenario involving DRE or boost and Crystal Beach that might result in the game going in either players favour depending upon how the rulling comes down. Both players have just a single active pokemon , candied to their stage 1/s2s. Both weak to each other to make the knock out more likely. FWIW the scenario I'd try to construct would be to make the strongest case I can for Fizzle.

 

[old man]

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.

 

[Lawman]

In reply to Chris and Ditto, I think we can all agree that Chris made an error....he didnt lay down the Stadium to allow the energy to convert to what he needed to do dual stream, his intended attack. Everyone agrees that Prof. Chris wanted to do his attack for a KO (I presume, since he says it was a game winning move). The biggest error here was the non-play of the stadium by Prof Chris, correct? That led to another error bc now, his attack isnt fully powered. IF we do a full rewind, Prof Chris gets to erase TWO errors on his part, FIX the problem and he wins. All the while, his opponent did NOTHING WRONG....yet loses! Is this proper gameplay procedure??? To reward the player that acted in a rush bc he "knew" he had the winning move, yet erred?? Sometimes, players just have to suck it up, admit their mistakes and move on. I know Prof Chris said he would scoop cards if the oppo showed him the stadium they failed to play.....but the shoe was on the other foot.

What did the other player want?? If they allow the full rewind, then that is fine and good SotG. Do I, as a Judge, force the other player to "show" SotG and allow a full rewind when they didn't err at all?

This is truly a "sticky wicket". I think I would be more inclined to go with the attack fizzles bc not powered. Harsh, but an error (or 2) took place already by the attacking player. I agree with Ian that it is a tough pill to force an alternate attack when that was not the player's intent at all. Either rewind or fizzle seems to be the more correct postions. Unfortunely, we dont have a consensus between the HJs/PTOs that are making these calls.

Keith

 

[SteveP]

Stupid analogy....

As a child, I had a toy car that drove around the room on it's own. When it ran into an object, it backup up and changed direction -- it didn't fizzle and die. I loved watching my "dumb" toy car bumble around the room.

Then, as an adult, I bought my kid a toy car that also drove around the room on it's own. However, this car had more brains (or sensors). When it came close to an object, it changed direction, avoiding the collision. It just wasn't the same as my own "bumbling" childhood car.

Anyway, at our CO States this weekend, we announced the "be kind and rewind" policy to the players. No one complained because to them, the players, that seemed like the right thing. A fizzle and die policy, like NoPoke stated, just seems like an extreme penalty for such a minor misplay.

Keith, while I can understand your logic in disallowing a rewind in this case (the player forgot that the stadium "dorked" his multiple energies card), it's really no different than a player forgetting other effects that might "prevent" something from happening. I just comes down to whether we have "phases" in Pokemon or just "steps."

Bottom line (for me). I'll NOT introduce "phases" to Pokemon. That's PCL's job. And if they do introduce phases someday, God help us all because that's the day Pokemon turns cutthroat.

 

[Lawman]

SteveP: Would you allow a player to lay down a basic or play a Trainer/supporter card after announcing an attack bc they "forgot" to do it during their turn?? No. That is why I say, you lose the stadium argument. The player made an error, why fix that?? When I get the chance to play, I make mistakes. That is what happens when you get a bit rusty as a player. Do I expect the opponent to give me (multiple) take backs?

Now, I did get to play a very entertaining (READ: not alot of action) game with Momma Malec in the NC States. We gave each other lots of slack on play. I was able to pull out the win bc she didnt realize what a Shiftry EX (PK) skill hack could do to her mewtrick deck when she kept the Ray * in her hand (holy star for the win). I took out Mew EX and Manny EX in one fell swoop. I certainly see both sides of the argument, but no one will disagree that if Prof Chris' attack did go thru, no one would allow him to lay down a different stadium after the attack was announced....correct? (Or play more cards from hand)

Keith

PS Don't you think enough players play "cutthroat" already Steve??

 

[Prime]

PS Don't you think enough players play "cutthroat" already Steve??

GFT

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

"Be kind and rewind"

I like that. This is the kind of thing that I’ve liked about Pokemon as I’ve recently started playing ... and most of all it's the kind of attitude that I want my junior aged kids to have. I love to win but I would rather loose with good sportsmanship than win on procedural technicalities that may or may not exist depending on how you parse the text of the basic rulebook.

As a poke-dad I can’t help thinking about my own kids playing the game first. I would rather be a part of a game that is forgiving to new young players than one that is more technical and geared towards high end masters. I expect the highly ranked masters seniors and master to not make mistakes like this but I also pretty much expect that new players and young juniors will make errors as a normal part of learning the game.

The events, rewards, and invites are great and I can see why folks focus on them, and why judges would focus on the higher ranked players who are in contention for such things, but the lifeblood of Pokemon is attracting new blood on a regular basis. The less n00b friendly you make the game the harder that will be.

 

[CameraMan]

Extracted from Expert Rules

I feel that we are trying to become Rule Wizzards here and to me that is also gaming.

Not sure if anyone remembers this is a game, games should be fun, and entertaining, and its nice to win, but when you feel you were outplayed, anyone that respects the spirit of the game will admit defeat and go on as a lesson learned.

Rarely a week goes by when I play at league, I run three of them these players get excited, and they want to attack when they can't because they forgot to do something. I use it as a learning moment. So we have the inexperienced and the experienced, and all of us forget to do things. For the experienced players, there is a differnt level of stress and yes they can forget also. There are also other variables that add stress that will make a player forget to do something, heat in the room, the mood of the event, time, confusion and noise in the room, and by the way yes, a Judge that happend to be your oponnents father watching your game, playing a pretty girl, and I can go on and on!

I don't see why it matters what order you do things in, the end of your turn is the successful execution of an attack, or you pass. Doesn't matter if the attach does anything or not. During your turn, you draw a card, attach energy, play trainers, retreat, pass or attack. The Successful attack is the end of your turn.

By rewind, that does not mean start your turn over, but it you have a trainer its your turn to play it, and go on, not pick up the supporter you played, and play a different one, however if you ask your oponnent and they OK, its their call to let you change a played card. Rewind means can you go back without changing what was played do it.

I have sat in on several Judge Meetings at WORLDS and Nationals, and the basic rule of thumb is rewind to where you can if you can.

The steps below are all vaigue, and it also states they can be done in any order. Read D If necessary, do anything the attack requires you to do in order to use it

The other player in Prof Chris place did not question this, the Judge saw it and stopped it.

So for the Rule Wizzards, what happens if I say, I will attack with blah blah blah by attaching this energy to my Blah blah blah? I announced my attack before playing the energy, even if my arm is in motion with the card in my hand.

This is an excessive and unreasonable ruling

From http://www.pokemon-tcg.com/p_strategy/rulebooks/book_77.jsp#520

What Counts as an Attack?
Anything written on a Basic Pokémon or Evolution card under the picture where attacks are found (except for a Poké-Power or Poké-Body) is considered an attack even if it doesn't do anything to your opponent's Pokémon. So, for example, Linoone's Seek Out and Poochyena's Knock Off would be prevented by an effect like Magmar ex's Smokescreen.

In What Order Do You Do Your Attack?
The exact steps to go through when attacking are listed here. For most attacks, it won't matter what order you do things in, but if you have to work your way through a really complicated attack, follow these steps in order and you should be fine.

1. If the Defending Pokémon is a Baby Pokémon, flip a coin to see if your turn ends without an attack. (If your turn ends without an attack, don't do any of the other steps. You're done now.)
2. Announce which attack your Active Pokémon is using. Make sure your Pokémon has enough Energy attached to it to use this attack.
3. If necessary, make any choices the attack requires you to make. (For example, Swampert's Water Arrow attack says "Choose one of your opponent's Pokémon." So you choose now.)
4. If necessary, do anything the attack requires you to do in order to use it. (For example, discard Energy cards, as in Camerupt's Fire Spin attack, which makes you discard 2 basic Energy cards attached to Camerupt in order to use it.)
5. If necessary, apply any effects that might alter or cancel the attack. (For example, if your Pokémon was hit last turn by Magmar ex's Smokescreen attack, that attack said that if you tried to attack with that Pokémon during your next turn, you should flip a coin. If tails, your Pokémon's attack does nothing.)
6. If your Active Pokémon is Confused, check now to see if the attack fails.
7. Do whatever the attack says. Do any damage first, then do any other effects, and finally, Knock Out any Pokémon that have damage greater than or equal to their Hit Points.

 

[SteveP]

SteveP: Would you allow a player to lay down a basic or play a Trainer/supporter card after announcing an attack bc they "forgot" to do it during their turn?? No. That is why I say, you lose the stadium argument. The player made an error, why fix that?? When I get the chance to play, I make mistakes. That is what happens when you get a bit rusty as a player. Do I expect the opponent to give me (multiple) take backs?

Your analog falls short. This is not a takeback due to a mistake. This is a reset due to a misplay (doing something illegal).

Now, I suppose you could call this a "loophole" in the rules in this particular instance, IF you feel a player is purposely taking advantage of it. But, for unintentional misplays, "rewind" is the recommended action.

Also, regarding cutthroat play, believe me, as one who competitively played a phase-based TCG (Lord of the Rings), Pokemon is "timid" in comparison.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

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.)

 

[CameraMan]

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.

Steve, you are so wise!

 

[Lawman]

SteveP: Are you saying that "forgetting" or "missing" the Crystal Beach FULLY in play isnt a misplay?? It is an error on the player to miss this, pure and simple. Look, I really like the Schell family, they are great players and ambassadors for the game (I remember what they did @ the hurricane shelters last year!), but it doesnt matter to me if it was Prof. Chris with the "misplay" or anyone else (my son included). It was Prof Chris that addmitted the misplay was his, the judge merely spoke of the ruling (Just in case anyone thinks I am singleling him out) It is an ERROR to announce an attack w/o changing out the stadium. It makes the intended attack fizzle bc it isn't fully powered now, due to the stadium. Rewinding to the point of allowing the stadium to now be laid to FIX the player's error/rush/nervousness, etc just seems wrong to me. I understand the "cannot happen/doesn't happen" philosophy (and yes Mike, I was in on the judges meeting at Worlds too). I know we, as judges, try to rewind whenever possible. My biggest beef with this is IF a player makes a true error ie I forgot to lay down my basic and I have none left when the opp. knocks out my active next turn and I lose. I have the basic in my hand...can I play it now? vs. the I attack w/ dual stream.....OOPS, crystal beach stadium in play....I dont have the energy for that...but HEY, I have the counter stadium in my hand....let me lay it NOW and I can attack. Both are game changing moments...yet one (according to some Judges here) requires a "take back" while the other doesnt (due to cant happen/doesnt happer rewind).

SteveP: I think it is fair to say that I do think this is a HUGE loophole for players and judges to deal with.

I'm just saying that I doubt that if any player would "allow" a player to lay down the "forgotten" basic after they attack/pass OR would they allow the mentor/lanette's to be played (if no supporter played yet) to get/add to the bench after an attack is called or allow the evo to be played after an attack is called. See where I am going here. I know I am not the 1st to say this, but at some point, a misplay/mistake has got to stick, if the opp. doesn't want to give a "take back". The opp. did nothing wrong, they only laid the stadium down! The stadium in question is there to DISRUPT decks anyway....sounds like it did its job. hmmmmm

What seeems to get forgotten here is the opponent. Where is the SotG to "protect" them when they dont make an error??? They are playing for the same prize(s) the erring player is playing for!

Just my 2 cents worth.

Keith

 

[Professor_Chris]

I made a mistake. This mistake was a gameplay error. I announced something I couldn't do. If I can't do it, it shouldn't happen. Announcing an illegal attack should not pull me into this "attack step" because I announced an attack that cannot be done. If I intentionally chose the wrong attack then it'd be too bad so sad for me, but I chose the right one that I had the ability to make legal.

In the order of attack there are only three places where an attack can fail: one (baby rule), five (smoke screen-esque effects), and six (confusion). The rule book does not say you can fail step two; therefore, if step two cannot be failed, then it should be safe to assume you cannot begin an attack where you can fail step two. Attacking is not a step, but merely an action you have the choice to perform during your turn, much like using Poke-powers and playing trainers. The only thing that sets Attacking appart from them is that a completed attack (even if failed where it is possible to fail) ends your turn and it's a more complicated action that requires a detailed (though apparently not clear enough) order of operations. Damage calculation has it's own order of operations and I don't see us calling it a phase yet. :\ Attacking is an action that should be rewinded if something illegal happens. If I chose to play my supporter for the turn and I can't fulfill the conditions of the card I played then I don't lose my supporter for the turn and the card is returned to me. That is a mistake in the same vein as announcing an attack you cannot do. Both are mistakes, but they are also gameplay errors that can't happen. My opponent should not gain a significant advantage because I performed a minor gameplay error.

I was beaten on a technicality, and frankly, I'd rather be Turn 1/2'd than to have to be cheated out of my comeback win.

EDIT:
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.

 

[PokePop]

Lawman, you keep comparing rotten apples to rotten oranges.
Yes, they are both bad fruit but they are still different.

Both a missed play and a misplay (impossible play) are mistakes and bear bad fruit, but one can be rewound and the other cannot.
Chris gives a good example with Swampert's Power.
Intent means nothing when rewinding. Judges should not be trying to infer intent, such as "you intended to end your turn".
That is a slope so slippery that it's a E-Ticket ride.

 

[meganium45]

Wouldn't it just be nice for PUI to give the "final answer" and end this debate.

We now have established that we have states doing things completely differently, which is inheritly bad for the game.

I am willing to play by either set of rules, but would like to know the rules to play by.

Until ruled...I am taking the side of player accountability. Fizzle (or rechoose lesser energied attack)

There are great arguments on both sides, I will acknowledge that...but you have to choose black or white, this is not a grey issue.

Vince

 

[M_Liesik]

As posted on the POP boards:

I'll be discussing this with OP and R&D this week. I know what my personal opinion is, but I'd rather get a consensus before I say anything.

For now, let's all take a deep breath and calm down a bit.

 

[meganium45]

Boy, you talk about ask and you shall receive!

Vince

 

[SuicidalPikachu]

This sort of thing happened to me at finals for MD States. however i feel that to a certain degree, such rulings should be left to the opponent. i mean if it isnt a game winning mistake, most people allow you to take it back, but keep in mind that it is not fair to your opponent to "take back" moves, so ultimately it is their decision. if such a ruling cannot be sorted out by the players a judge should intervene. it all goes back to if your opponent allows it. it is a game, but it is also a competition and therefore finding the right medium should be the answer.

at the same time i am going to use this example. say we are making a cake, you get out all the ingrediants and realize you are missing some. that is easily fixed by not attempting to make the cake in the first place, but if you realize the ingrediant is missing after mixing in the rest, you cannot undo the mixing and it is a failed attempt to make a cake, plain and simple.

 

[Professor_Chris]

This sort of thing happened to me at finals for MD States. however i feel that to a certain degree, such rulings should be left to the opponent. i mean if it isnt a game winning mistake, most people allow you to take it back, but keep in mind that it is not fair to your opponent to "take back" moves, so ultimately it is their decision. if such a ruling cannot be sorted out by the players a judge should intervene. it all goes back to if your opponent allows it. it is a game, but it is also a competition and therefore finding the right medium should be the answer.

at the same time i am going to use this example. say we are making a cake, you get out all the ingrediants and realize you are missing some. that is easily fixed by not attempting to make the cake in the first place, but if you realize the ingrediant is missing after mixing in the rest, you cannot undo the mixing and it is a failed attempt to make a cake, plain and simple.

Actually, it's more like you're making a cake but right before you throw it in the oven you notice you forgot to add the last thing. You have this ingredient, so are you just gonna throw the cake mix out or add it in and complete the cake?

 

[Rocketman]

No phases, huh? So what was that yesterday when you were trying to explain your position when you told me I had entered the attack phase? :\

Speaking of intent, my intent was to use Dual Stream. My intent was not to use Claw Swipe OR pass. Forcing a player to either give up an attack or use an alternate, possibly self-damaging is a ridiculously steep price to pay for the most minor and easiest to rewind of gameplay errors (assuming it is caught before the next turn starts). It's hardly even a misplay. A misplay would be attaching the wrong energy and being unable to attack no matter what you tried. I attached the RIGHT energy, I got ahead of myself because it was the game winning move and I knew I had it. Your stalling example is ridiculous. You'd buy no more than 5 seconds by announcing an illegal attack, noticing it and then completing your turn (which you would have done anyway). It's a mistake that deserves no more than a caution for a single offense. Obviously, if the offense is repeated it should escalate.

This should actually be a non-issue. I had the stadium in hand and the energy, all I had to do was drop one and the attack would be valid. No, I take that back, it probably would have been a non-issue if her father wasn't standing over the match when he saw her about to lose with plenty of other matches still going on with ~5-10 minutes left in the round. Now, Jeff's a great guy and I know his heart is in the right place, but this wasn't the only questionable thing he did that day. If the shoe would have been on the other foot, as soon as she flashed the stadium to prove she could make her attack legal, I would have picked up my cards because she obviously has the winning move.

A player should be able to do everything in his or her power to make his or her intended attack legal before having to choose to pass or use another attack. Especially if it's merely dropping a card from their hand.

Chris, you are completely off base with your remarks
Jeff did not make the ruling, I did! Jeff called me over, as it involved his kid. Which was the right thing to do! Did you forget this? Because I was the one you were yelling at!
As far as I can see, the Head Judge had give you a ruling on play that WAS NOT WRONG!!!!!!!! I don't care how you THINK it should be, that is the way I ruled it, and you know as well as anyone else, after the HJ ruled on it, you move on. You wanted to get me to change my mind, and I was not!!!! Any judge that would do so would be a poor judge, and you were lucky you didn't get an unsportsmanship penalty for your actions. I could be more understanding if you can show me where in the rules I was wrong. But that is not the case. I made that ruling several times that day, and you were the only one who threw a fit!
I stand by my ruling. If the ruling goes the other way, fine. I have my reasons for viewing it that, just as you have yours. I can respect your reasons, but choose not to agree with you or flame you for thinking that way. The same respect would be a step in the right direction. But it doesn't change anything from Sunday, the ruling was correct.
Rick

 

[Squirtle]

Chris, you are completely off base with your remarks
Jeff did not make the ruling, I did! Jeff called me over, as it involved his kid. Which was the right thing to do! Did you forget this? Because I was the one you were yelling at!
As far as I can see, the Head Judge had give you a ruling on play that WAS NOT WRONG!!!!!!!! I don't care how you THINK it should be, that is the way I ruled it, and you know as well as anyone else, after the HJ ruled on it, you move on. You wanted to get me to change my mind, and I was not!!!! Any judge that would do so would be a poor judge, and you were lucky you didn't get an unsportsmanship penalty for your actions. I could be more understanding if you can show me where in the rules I was wrong. But that is not the case. I made that ruling several times that day, and you were the only one who threw a fit!
I stand by my ruling. If the ruling goes the other way, fine. I have my reasons for viewing it that, just as you have yours. I can respect your reasons, but choose not to agree with you or flame you for thinking that way. The same respect would be a step in the right direction. But it doesn't change anything from Sunday, the ruling was correct.
Rick

QFT