AUTHORISED POLL- new game rule on trainers

[SteveP]

This is a tough one. I think it comes down to determining what is the actual "cost" when playing a trainer. Generally speaking, the cost of a trainer is to discard it. Now, with GardevoirEX and CopyCat being in the meta-game, one would argue that errant discarding of trainers (using trainers and opting not to get the effect) would be detrimental to certain strategies in the meta-game. So, here's my opinion:

If the trainer effect says "up to X" as in the case of Lanette's Net Search (get up to 3 different types of Pokemon), then "zero" should be one of those allowed possibilities. In the case of Lanette, one could easily argue that searching/shuffling your deck is an effect (not a cost) and therefore satisfied when you search/shuffle your deck. Now, if you discarded Lanette without searching AND shuffling your deck (perhaps because you didn't want to disrupt the top of your deck), I'd say that you COULDN'T do that.

Futhermore, what do you do in the case of cards like Prof Elm's Training Method when it's discovered there are NO evolutions in the deck. Searching and shuffling your deck IS an effect that CAN'T be unwound; therefore, Prof Elm's Training Method MUST be discarded, even if there were no evolutions in the deck.

This really comes down to a discussion about what is/are the cost(s) of the trainer versus what is/are the effect(s). If we can distinquish those aspects of each trainer, I think this issue becomes much easier to address.

Finally, this issue can be expanded to include Pokemon Powers. For example, Psy Shadow's cost (or is it an effect) is to add 2 damage counters to the Pokemon you attach the Psychic Energy to. Let's say that you search your deck and find NO Psychic energies. Man, you've just searched and shuffled your deck (part of the effect of Psy Shadow). Do you still add the damage counters? Is placement of the damage counters a COST or and EFFECT? Can you see the dilema here? Sometimes COST and EFFECT are not easily distinguishable in Pokemon.

 

[ShadowCard]

Now, with GardevoirEX and CopyCat being in the meta-game, one would argue that errant discarding of trainers (using trainers and opting not to get the effect) would be detrimental to certain strategies in the meta-game.

Well, we're not choosing if we want the effect or not, we're saying to play them even if the effect can't be forfilled. It's not, "I'll play Item Finder but I don't want to retreive a trainer card from my discard pile", it's "I'll play Item Finder but I do not have any trainer cards in my discard pile." (atleast that's what I thought we were talking about).

Sometimes COST and EFFECT are not easily distinguishable in Pokemon.

This is the reason I did not like Tag Team, costs and effects had to be identified. Most players probably don't know the difference between a cost and an effect unless they've played a different card game. This is one reason I quit yugioh, you must know the different costs and effects for all cards and most players do not know. It would be extremely bad for Pokemon, if we decided to go out and label all the costs for every trainer card.

 

[GOROY]

"'We should be able to use trainer cards even if we know they won't work, for many reasons, one of which would be defending against Gardy ex, who at my league is used so much, that I need to protect from Feedback'

just because of gardy ex,absol and what so ever just to change the ruling?

why dont u ban gardy ex ,i think its too broken

ok heres the 2 format which make gardy ex super powerful"

Originally posted by jesschow12

Actually, I was using Gardy Ex as an example, not the main or only reason, but as my example, because he is overly-used at my league. I like Gardy ex, but I think that this ruling hurts people who don't play, basically for Feedback.
Also, as others have stated other reasons could be for Energy search: I know there are no energies, but I use it to shuffle, OR I use it without realizing there are no energies.

 

[HYPER EEVEE]

personally i hate it
why would u have to shuffle 3 energy on energy recycke system when u could just have 2

 

[YoungJohn06]

personally i hate it
why would u have to shuffle 3 energy on energy recycke system when u could just have 2

I don't like it, I like being able to use a trainer and like "throw it away" to thin my deck with shuffling cards, rather than shuffle it in and draw it again. It's a good strategy and it's something I, as well as others are used to being able to do. Plus, I think they should leave the game mostly like it was when Wizards had it, or at least give us EVERY single change in the rules upfront instead of throwing them in after we've gotten used to a certain way of playing. It's frustrating to a player who's used to the game and very much adapted to a certain play style to have a rule changed making it so they suddenly can't do something they've been doing for a long time.

 

[Mr. Grass]

I think this rule should be dropped if only because it is so hard to enforce. You could come to a point in a game where you know you have no evolutions in your deck and you wanted to dump a Fast Ball before Copycatting. If you haven't failed to find an evolution card, how could your opponent prove that you knew the trainer had no effect? And the rule has always been the if you can't complete the full effect of a trainer, do as much as you can. This would also add an uneccesary amount of complication to the game. Players will be encouraged to keep track of when opponents' trainers fail. If anything this makes the game a lot more complicated.

 

[MilesReturns]

I gotta say that I agree with this ruling, even though I don't particularly like it...

First let me get a better understanding of this, to use a trainer you would have to comply with all of the effects? That actually doesn't make sense. They're not gonna make you count all the energy in your hand, discard, and in play before you can use an Energy Search (even if they did, there's still the prizes to account for...)

What does make sense is that you have to be able to try and fulfill what the card says when you use it. Energy Search states "Search your deck for a basic Energy card and add it to your hand." (Or something like that, I don't have the card handy...) Searching for something doesn't mean that you have to find it, but as long as you're able to make the effort to try and do what the trainer says, it should be fine.

Playing trainer cards just to blatantly get them out of your hand is wrong in my opinion. Granted, playing a card just to thin out your deck or to avoid a certain attack is strategic, but can you use Juggler If you have no energy in your hand just because you want to get rid of the card? No, you can't and that's the same sort of thing. Why should you be able to use Switch with no bench? Or use Potion on a poké with no damage?

As long as there's the possibility that you can comply with what the trainers ask for then you should be able to use them, but if there's just, flat out, no way that you can do what the trainer says, then you should not be able to use it.

 

[tolotos]

Or use Potion on a poké with no damage?

If you can´t use a potion on a poké with 0 damage, then you can´t use one on a poké with 1 damager either. I suppose Potion says "up to 2 damage counters" and that means (or should mean, I know that there is a new ruling...) zero is also involved.

 

[Glumanda]

TheDeuce is absolutely right in my opinion. It´s absolutely ridicolous to play a potion when none of your pokemon has a damage counter on it. It´s absolutely ridicolous to play Wally´s Training on a Mewtwo ex. There are several cards now applying to the cards someone has on his hand. So it should be not possible for someone to throw cards away in the cases when both players can easily determine that these cards have no effect. In my opinion such actions are disrupting the game sense. So:

* No Fisherman with no cards in the discard pile.
* No Wally´s Traing on Mewtwo ex.
* No Energy Search when you have just found out that you have no energies in your deck.
* No Juggler if you have no energies in hand.

IMHO the rule, that you are not allowed to play a trainer card in the case, when both players can clearly deduce, that it will have no effect, is okay. If you formulate this in the right way, it´s IMO also an easy to understand rule.

 

[Otaku]

Does this mean you cannot try to deter a damage swap alakazam by playing goop gas in your turn, while there are no powers to shut off. You can't force your opponent to shuffle their deck with cards that shuffle some of their cards in, like Lass when they have no trainers. You can't shuffle your deck when you play gambler as your last card?

Except Goop Gas still gets its effect in that situation-it stops all Pokemon Powers for the next two turns. That is its full effect. You can't SER nothing becuase it targets something. I can't rule on the other cards without analyzin their text. That's kinda the issue here-what does the text say. I mean, by this logic that I can play something that has no hope of working, you should also be able to play a basic when your bench is full, then discard it beacue there is no room. Or try to evolve, then discard the evo when you realize that "Oops, Gardevoir doesn't evolve from Dunsparce".

I need to research this more before I can firmly go one way or the other, but right now, I am leaning in favor of the rule change, as I didn't even know it was a "change".

 

[MilesReturns]

If you can´t use a potion on a poké with 0 damage, then you can´t use one on a poké with 1 damager either. I suppose Potion says "up to 2 damage counters" and that means (or should mean, I know that there is a new ruling...) zero is also involved.

No, that's entirely different, for stuff like Potion when there's only 1 damage counter or Volunteers when there's only 3 energy/pokémon in your discard then you just have to use common sense. Those cards are basically just missing reminder text saying "If there are less, take them all". It's like giving a pokémon a resistance but forgetting to put the "-30" by it.

As long as the card does something then it should be okay to use, but you should'nt be able to discard them just for the sake of discarding...

 

[Porygon3]

oh my word...
This makes alot of sence. You cant play "Switch" if you hand no bench- however... this DOES conflict with the in rullbook text of that you can draw cards even if you have nothing left or less then, then the rull book just tells you "do as much as you can" or something like that I belive, regardless, If I play an engery search, find engery- then rember I dont want to deck out- I can NOT take the engery into my hand, reversely- I could play it find NO engery but see whats in my deck regardless, a few turns latter I may have something that looks in my deck- lets say a Forest Guardan, and my deck is only 7 cards big now- so I still dont want to deck myself unless that one card I nead is in there- but I've forgoten what is in my deck for whatever reasion, and since I dont want to appere to be cheating in a time limit zone (if I played under that rulling) then I use an engery search to see whats in my deck, and finding no engery - or even if I did- not use its effect. Now I know whats in my deck, so I can forest guardan...
OK stragity aside, does this make loop holes to explote? Well... Cant Warp Point if you and your oppenent have no bench, cant potion with no dammage counters..? Now wait- Aipercorn forest - lets you look for a basic - then show an evoultion then switch the two (the wording is strange on it) but wait, finding no engery the first time I can no longer do that effect next turn, but what about putting the evoultion back- thats legeal from what I can tell- so if you can do some of the trainer we have always been told to "do whatever we can" right? Ehh.... Ok Pokenav is unplayable because if you reveal 3 trainers... it does nothing -- (although its been Errataed, still you get my point) Now for stalling... eh if someone is being slow delibatlery then thats not sportsman like. But if there is a reasion for it, like playing a swtich so when I copycat I basicly get more cards... then it makes sence to a point- in the gameboy it does not let you use items when "they would have no effect" perhaps this is Ninendo's futhering the card game to be more and more like the gameboy version. Just let my blend my berrys into something usefull then... I guess you have to play the trainer "Eon-Ticket" to play Any Latous or Latous, or whatever... etc... this rulling could cause problems or solve them- possible loops within trainers- I see the judge being called over about how a trainer can be played- Engery Search most of all- becuase if you cant play it if you cant do its effect- but you could play it an NOT use its effect because of the "may" part--- you would have to ask the judge to see if your oppenent had engery cards to look for or if that move was illegal, and after that NOW you know they have engery in there deck so you know more about there deck, hummm- that gives away some knowalage to your oppenent doesnt it? wastes the judges time, and its a legal quesiton... sigh... I vote a hardy NO NO NO NO for the love of humanty NO -- Nintedo or whatever is doing this - STOP!! If you want this game to REALLY be like the gameboy version- then any and all trainres that heal are consedered to be in your backpack- difernt balls are in a seprate pouch, umm- during a battle if you play a healing item your oppenent gets to attack unless your speed is enough, I guess we will have to flip for speed of pokemon or something, oh and they can learn new attacks... and and and...

 

[NoPoke]

Here's the poll question again

Q> Are you happy with the restriction that you cannot play a trainer unless you can comply with all its actions?

Remember that its ALL or NOTHING. The earlier rule to do as much as you can has been overturned by PUI/POP at a recent rules meeting! Hence this poll

Additionaly, if you have a posteriori knowledge that the trainer will fail then you would also not be allowed to use the trainer. I gave various examples where using a trainer was contingent upon the neatness and contents of your discard pile.

there are lots of reasons why I don't like this change here's a few..

• seems to be change for changes sake
• the old way wasn't broke
• reduces strategic options
• trashes loads of rulings in the compendium ( which means arguements at tournaments)
• will increase accusations of cheating (more arguements at tournaments)
• makes judging harder
• introduces requirement to keep track of what has been established so far.

IMHO it wasn't broke with the do as much as you can guideline but it sure is now with a posteriori knowledge now becoming a factor in usage of trainers.

So I completely fail to see how this new guideline is anything but trouble for players and judges alike.

 

[ukpokemonpro]

PokePop and all

Quote:Why are you assuming that the ruling philosophy has anything to do with Gardy?
It totally has to do with the Japanese game philosophy and how they play vs how we in the US are used to playing.

If you want even more weight to the argument it's the way we in the rest of the world outside TPC control

PUI is more responsive to TPC in regards to this than WotC was. WotC kept it more like MTG.

I think it's much better to think in terms of just about every other TCG/CCG out including MttG rather than using just MtG as the analogy. There is the basic rule in most CCGs/TCGs that:

When a card overules the rulebook do what it says on the card

It is simple and as long as the card is templated correctly very sweet. It means a small rulebook and easy game play, it's quick to pick up the basics of a game and then you spend a life time chasing the strategies that individual cards and combinations give us.

It means a small set of rulings and as long as the language on the card is screwed down tight with little or no room for semantics then there are opportunities to introduce new and exciting strategies via the cards without rulebook changes.

PUI is more responsive to TPC in regards to this than WotC was.

Oh dear this seems to show us a couple of problems with having PUI in charge:

1) They are very close to TPC and therfore may feel unable to fight our corner when that needs to be done
2) So far; to me anyway, it appears that PUI are taking a path of least resistance line on most things.

Take the currnet crop of US promo's they are basically reprints of the McDonald Promos and not much thought or effort seems to have been made with regards to what actually would get players excited!

But I am at risk of straying too far off topic... I vote NO again because we need to Keep It Simple and let the cards do the talking. Small rulebook large card pool with great strategy ... that's what is needed.

 

[Otaku]

But I am at risk of straying too far off topic... I vote NO again because we need to Keep It Simple and let the cards do the talking. Small rulebook large card pool with great strategy ... that's what is needed.

Except I honestly find the "original" ruling to be more confusing. You have to determine exactly what is and isn't able to be done. This cn be quite tricky. While discussing this with another Professor, he brought up how this should technically change certain rulings. Now, most of these changes were considered bad. However, most of these changes are also things that appear to ahve been mistranslated but never errata'd. Personally, I want my cards to work the way they are supposed to, even if it means "ruining them". This reminds me of the debate over the Sandstorm Marril. The old "play as written" ruling really is a bad one-imagine if I had a Mewtwo ex... without the ex part on it. Play that as written and see if it's not broken. Now to make it worse, imagine only like 100 copies existed... and all were shipped to the same state or province etc. There are no longer as many "power" players as their used to be (the kind who would actually be willing to pay for such cards), but still, wouldnt it be annoying if your league was killed because Little Timmy had 4 of those "errors". I find this similar to the current situation-a bad ruling in the past (letting people throw away cards-and as I said, I have never seen it before now), and a mixed ruling in the whole do-what-you-can bit, well, they really aren't that good of ideas...

 

[P_A]

I agree with farbsman, in that it would be hard to police, not being able to prove conclusively that a person deliberately wanted to get rid of a trainer, so why have the restriction in the first place? Sure, a player benefits to a certain degree against some decks, but by no means will this strategy help against all decks! Why make a ruling which calls into doubt so many earlier rulings? The slight strategic advantage this provides is not worth the hassle for the judges. Some of the cards effects cannot be rewound, so would be hard to judge on.

 

[Otaku]

I agree with farbsman, in that it would be hard to police, not being able to prove conclusively that a person deliberately wanted to get rid of a trainer, so why have the restriction in the first place?

How hard is it to police? Perhaps I misunderstood the ruling, but its my understanding that you have to know it won't work. Now, maybe I am lenient, but I know most people don't have photgraphic memories-I have failed to rmember my energy count right at times. As such, its not like someone will be looking at your decklist and counting your energies: rather if you play an Energy Search, fail to find anything (and that card requires you take something), then you can't burn another. On the other hand, if you have the "option" of grabbing 0 for a card, then that card could be repeatedly used. It's the blatent wasting that is obvious, like Wally on Mewtwo ex, that at least I am talking about, and that the rule applies to.

Sure, a player benefits to a certain degree against some decks, but by no means will this strategy help against all decks! Why make a ruling which calls into doubt so many earlier rulings? The slight strategic advantage this provides is not worth the hassle for the judges. Some of the cards effects cannot be rewound, so would be hard to judge on.

Why make a ruling that calls older rulings into doubt? Maybe 'cause the older rulings are wrong. I play a lot of games, and am something of a "rules lawyer": that means that I look for loop-holes in the rules. The difference between me and most rules lawyers, was that after a bit, I realized what I was doing to the game-hurting it. So instead, I'd find the loop-holes, tell the GM (the person who runs the game), and we'd (try) fix them. I think thats what we are finding here-the game is old enough we are finding a lot of loop-holes and even bad rulings.

 

[GreatFox]

Unfortunately, I'm for the ruling.

What it all comes down to is the vocabulary used in the card. If it says "up to"... then you can simply throw it away as 0 leads up to any number. If it has a fixed number, like Potion which says remove 2 damage counters, then you have to remove 2 counters or 1 if it only has 1, but not zero.

As for other cards, its up to you and your opponnent to remember what has happened. As it is with all rulings. If your opponent brakes the rules and you don't notice, its your fault and nothing can be done about it.

So the only time this particular ruling really counts is if a player notices that a trainer card can not be played and the opponent tries to play it anyways without doing what the card states. After that, its up to the judge to enforce the ruling when called on it.

 

[ShadowCard]

makes judging harder

yes, I can't judge people with this ruling. I'm not saying that I refuse, I'm saying it is something you can't enforce among the players (allong with that, the players won't like it. I see people leaving the league. I would rather not enforce this rule and keep people at my league).

Like Otaku, I am sort of a "rules lawyer" and there are way too many loopholes and possible ways of manipulating of this rule (ex: a player establishes he or she doesn't have any energy cards in the deck through Energy Search. Later in the game, the player plays another Energy Search and looks at the deck before either player remembers about the first attempt. Do they get to shuffle their deck and does the trainer return to the player's hand? the player in this example is most likely lying about forgetting (in order to shuffle the deck perhaps), but there is no way to prove that. People can be forgetful <-- even though only allowed once a turn, i bet there isn't one of us who has not forgotten if they have placed an energy card or not during a turn in a game)

If the PUI is asked if they have thought about this, in the next chat meeting or whenever it would be asked, and respond that they stand by it, I will inform players about the change. If they say they have changed their minds, than it's all forgotten *nods*

 

[Porygon3]

"Up 2" will have to be redifiened at this point!! Since when is Zero not a number? ok, I'll remove .05 dammage, arrgghh... we are going to get into debates on what a number is next? Again, if the card says "may" in it then you can toss it with out doing its result; the template on serten cards like Wally's Training is clear, the same goes for Rair Candy, or Breader, put it simply these are cards that require you to do there effects RIGHT now- if you cant- then you cant play the card.. thats how I've always viewed it, however if its all or nothing, then fine, you can play any trainer card you want, if your unable to use its effect then its discarded (unless its a suporter, then its in play untill your turn ends, hey- anyone want to take on the rulling of when players discard Suporters and use them- wouldnt that end there turn...) anyrate- I have no problem with trainers being "wasted" just so you could copycat a biger hand- if you want to go ahead- there is only 1 attack or so that will get you a trainer back in E-on. So waste your cards... of course you cant use baloon berry if you cant retreat- thats just a no brainer, you cant retreat if there is nothing to retreat to!! Again, this just seems like whoever wanting to get the game more like the Gameboy version or something, and again I state Engery Search and simular trainers will bring in MORE depates from oppenents since there effects are not mandary- unless they errata every single trainer that you must use there effect... ok Erica, we both must draw 3 cards? Ehh-- oh wait. Desert Shaman, if I draw zero you must draw the same... ??? if you cant draw then you lose...? @_@ see it will make loop holes... you wait and see... if something is not broken, dont fix it. OR if you fix it- make it make sence. Not this you cant play something unless you can use it -all out enforcement- all or nothing rullings hardly ever work. I'm just very very glad I dont run these things it would drive me insain, and if I went to any you can bet I would put 4 engery search - just so that i could use it and not get engery, then latter use it to get engery, have my oppenent call the judge over to check if I can use it, and look- its stalling at its worst, in reverse form, and legal... and thats just one example. Say NO to Proabition on playing trainers when you cant use there effects... let it go back to the way its always been.