In place of naming an attack ("Hammerhead"), my opponent tells me how much damage his attack does. ("I do 30 to the active, and 30 to the benched Tornadus EX.")
1. Has my opponent entered the attack phase?
2. As it turns out, my opponent is *slightly* incorrect in stating the damage done by the attack he has in mind; my benched Tornadus EX has an Eviolite attached, and so my opponent's Landorus EX would only do 10 damage with Hammerhead. (But, of course, he has not said "Hammerhead". He does have the necessary energy though.) My opponent argues that he has declared his attack incorrectly, and has the opportunity to declare a correct attack by changing the benched target. Is he right?
3. I don't realize/object that my opponent hasn't named an attack, and after he tells me that he does 30/30, I place those damage counters on my Pokemon. On my turn, I play Juniper for a new hand (and thus make the game state irreversible). It is only at this point that I realize that my opponent's Hammerhead attack wouldn't have done 30 to my benched, Eviolited Tornadus EX, in spite of my opponent's assertion that it would. I argue to a judge that I wouldn't have Junipered had I known this, blame my opponent for the broken game state, and argue that I should get to play my original hand over. My opponent counters that it's both of our responsibility to make sure the game state doesn't break, and that the game should continue as is. Are either of us right? What should the judge do?
4. Let's say that my opponent is *entirely* incorrect in stating the damage done; he makes the statement at the top, without naming an attack, but he fails to notice that his Landorus EX is still on the bench, and that he hasn't retreated Sableye yet. (He meant to though.) Even though his statement is impossible--there is no way for Sableye to do the stated damage--has my opponent entered the attack phase?
I guess these are all obviously variations on a broader question. The rules and consequences of naming an invalid attack are very clear. Can a player skirt these rules by just not ever naming an attack, and to just state the amount of damage done instead? Do the rules explicitly require that a player name an attack to end their turn? (Okay, that last one is a crazy question...but not entirely crazy.)
1. Has my opponent entered the attack phase?
2. As it turns out, my opponent is *slightly* incorrect in stating the damage done by the attack he has in mind; my benched Tornadus EX has an Eviolite attached, and so my opponent's Landorus EX would only do 10 damage with Hammerhead. (But, of course, he has not said "Hammerhead". He does have the necessary energy though.) My opponent argues that he has declared his attack incorrectly, and has the opportunity to declare a correct attack by changing the benched target. Is he right?
3. I don't realize/object that my opponent hasn't named an attack, and after he tells me that he does 30/30, I place those damage counters on my Pokemon. On my turn, I play Juniper for a new hand (and thus make the game state irreversible). It is only at this point that I realize that my opponent's Hammerhead attack wouldn't have done 30 to my benched, Eviolited Tornadus EX, in spite of my opponent's assertion that it would. I argue to a judge that I wouldn't have Junipered had I known this, blame my opponent for the broken game state, and argue that I should get to play my original hand over. My opponent counters that it's both of our responsibility to make sure the game state doesn't break, and that the game should continue as is. Are either of us right? What should the judge do?
4. Let's say that my opponent is *entirely* incorrect in stating the damage done; he makes the statement at the top, without naming an attack, but he fails to notice that his Landorus EX is still on the bench, and that he hasn't retreated Sableye yet. (He meant to though.) Even though his statement is impossible--there is no way for Sableye to do the stated damage--has my opponent entered the attack phase?
I guess these are all obviously variations on a broader question. The rules and consequences of naming an invalid attack are very clear. Can a player skirt these rules by just not ever naming an attack, and to just state the amount of damage done instead? Do the rules explicitly require that a player name an attack to end their turn? (Okay, that last one is a crazy question...but not entirely crazy.)
