Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Missplay leading to known cards put on top of deck.

Pokebjorn

New Member
Hi PokeGym,

I am trying to do some judging at local tournaments. My kids play Pokemon, I have played it to a bit but mostly other card games. One thing that really surprised me when I have seen some rulings is that when one player makes a card misstake like drawing too many cards, he/she gets to put those cards back in order on top of his/her deck. Coming from other cardgames I cannot see how this is right.

First question, is this actually the correct ruling? Should cards that have been drawn, but shouldn't have been, be put back on top of the deck with both players knowing the order? Without shuffling?

Second question, why? Why? In most card games, not knowing what cards comes next is the most cruical mechanic of the game. This is true also for Pokemon. I understand that the first task of a judge is to try to revert the game state to a point where there is no error. But reverting the game state to me means: revert to a point where the correct number of cards have been drawn, AND reverting to a point where you don't know what card should come next. The most logical ruling to me would be: put cards back, then shuffle the players deck. Would this be an ok ruling as well?
 
Keep in mind that many rules are made for tournament play, with the assumption that a judge will be available to resolve incorrect situations. For casual and league play, there isn't always a judge available, so players have to resolve their mistakes themselves. With that in mind, in tournament (i.e. judged) play, the player does not get to simply put the cards back on top of the deck, or shuffle them in, or do anything with them - they have to call a judge and explain what they did. The judge will make a decision about what will be done with the cards. Sometimes, the card is shuffled into the deck, other times it's revealed and put back on top of the deck.

Generally, the deck's order is considered unknown to both players, but not undefined. In other words, the deck has an order, you just (usually) don't know what it is. This can be seen by the fact that reordering (parts of) the deck without shuffling is a relatively common effect of cards (for example, Caitlin and Pokédex), something that would not be possible if the deck's order was considered undefined. There's also a rule against shuffling the deck without a card effect, which wouldn't make sense if the order was undefined.
 
One of the most crucial guidelines to correcting the game state after a mis-play is to interfere with the actual game state as little as possible.

I agree, when you get started judging, it seems logical to want to re-shuffle revealed and/or mis-played cards - but don't do it. When the cards are shuffled and cut, the order of the deck (it's current level and state of randomness) is set by game play. That is the current game state. If you flip the deck upside down, draw a card from the top, turn it clock-wise 90 degrees, etc. - the game state (order of the deck) is still the same. If a card is revealed that should not be by drawing an extra card and you shuffle that card back into the deck, you have interfered significantly with the game state as it was set by game play.

(For example: a player draws an extra card to start their turn, revealing a basic energy. Unknown to both players at this time, the next 6 cards are also basic energy. Therefore, if the player played Professor Sycamore, they would draw 7 basic energy. If you shuffle the deck because of the revealed card and the same player plays Professor Sycamore, they will now get 7 different cards - significantly changing the game state, and possibly the outcome of the game.)

By revealing the extra card to both players and replacing it back on top of the deck (in the order it was drawn), you have not altered the gamestate, but you have leveled the playing field. So both players know what the next card to be drawn by that player is - unless someone plays a card to alter the order of the deck. Yes, the player may adjust what they play that turn to either avoid or ensure drawing that card. But even if the card had not been revealed, game play may very well have continued in exactly the same manner.

Don't forget that the reveal/replace is NOT the penalty. That is the fix. The player earns a penalty according to the guidelines (in tournament play, of course). While the initial penalty for this is not severe, it could easily be escalated by a judge if there appears to be a pattern of behavior to reveal extra cards during games throughout a tournament.
 
Keep in mind that many rules are made for tournament play, with the assumption that a judge will be available to resolve incorrect situations.

Sure, what I meant was: what is a judge supposed to do in that kind of situation.


In other words, the deck has an order, you just (usually) don't know what it is.

I don't really agree with this. A deck that has an order that you don't know the order of is equivalent to a disordered (randomized) deck. I agree that there could be instances where Caitlin or Pokedex is introducing some type of knowledge about the deck order, and had these been played right before the hypothetical play error, this would of course be have to taken into account. Those cards in particular, though, are extremely useful if you happen to know the deck order, so if they were played after a judge puts known cards on top of the deck, that would be an advantage to the player that made the misstake to begin with.

My main point here is, that knowing what cards are coming are usually beneficial for the player and this should be avoided if possible.


There's also a rule against shuffling the deck without a card effect, which wouldn't make sense if the order was undefined.

Yes, I am aware of this rule. If in your game, no put to the bottom effects or for example Caitlin or Pokedex has been played, I would argue that this rule doesn't make sense. It seems a bit un-scientific and seems to based in some type of gamer superstition. What does it matter if a supposedly randomized deck is re-shuffled, how does that change the probability of drawing that next crucial card? I guess maybe it's good to have this rule just because such cards exist, although most of the time it doesn't make any sense.

So, to conclude: If I am a judge at a pokemon tournament. Caitlin or Pokedex or something similar hasn't been played. Someone accidentally draws, say 3 cards instead of 2, can I rule that that player should put the last drawn card back on top and then shuffle his/her deck?

- - - Updated - - -

By revealing the extra card to both players and replacing it back on top of the deck (in the order it was drawn), you have not altered the gamestate, but you have leveled the playing field.

I would argue, that this changes the game state more than putting it back and re-shuffling, because the game state should be about known cards (in hand, in play, in discard), not about the order of cards in the deck. I would argue that the default game state is one in which the deck is supposed to be random and unknown. Is there an official rule that says this is the way to handle these things?
 
I would argue, that this changes the game state more than putting it back and re-shuffling, because the game state should be about known cards (in hand, in play, in discard), not about the order of cards in the deck. I would argue that the default game state is one in which the deck is supposed to be random and unknown. Is there an official rule that says this is the way to handle these things?

There are not detailed judge policy guides for Pokemon like you might find in other games. However, what I have stated is as close to "official" as I can think. This is how I have been instructed by several senior judges as I've learned over the past 5 years. We should never introduce a "random" shuffling of the deck into a game unless at the direction of a specific card.

I understand your concern, as I mentioned, I remember wanting to shuffle away revealed cards as I began judging as well. Perhaps I can frame it another way.

Don't mix up card ruling language with judging. In a card ruling situation, the contents of the deck and hand are unknown, this has very real ramifications on how cards interact and physical game play occurs.

However, in an actual game, there are cards in the hand and the deck. They are arranged in a certain order. This is the physical state of the game. Whether a player gains x-ray vision or gets amnesia mid-match does not impact the actual, physical location of the cards. So to fix an error in game play, we have to get those cards back to the same place that they were before the error occurred - or as close as we can. We cannot try to "re-set" a player's decision process or what they are thinking to what it was before an error occurred, we just aren't that good. All that we can do in the process of fixing a game state after an error has occurred is to return the physical cards to the most accurate location possible.

(Using the baldest form of logic the quote above, couldn't a judge come to a table and shuffle a player's deck at any time - arguing that since the deck is supposed to be random and it still is, that everything is OK? - of course, this is an exaggeration, but trying to make a point.)

Think of this scenario: The revealed card is a "one-of" in the Player A's deck. "A" now knows that the card is not in his/her prizes. That knowledge cannot be re-set. You can't tell Player A "you must play as if you don't know that card is in your deck somewhere." Already, A has an advantage over their opponent who knows "what" the card is, but not how many are in the deck. Even if you shuffle A's deck (to erase the knowledge of what card is coming next), you cannot erase the knowledge that Player A gained from revealing the card. Instead, if both players know that the next card drawn with be that card, you have tried to minimize any potential advantage A may have. If he/she is that good, Player B might even go down a long "conjecture roadtrip" - trying to deduce why Player A makes this or that move, since they know their next card.

Again, if Player A is revealing extra cards on purpose (with intent) to gain an advantage on their opponent, then you have completely left the "Game Play Error: Minor" category and need to continue on to the "Cheating" section of the penalty guidelines.
 
This argument is been going on for a long time, with people on both sides having very good points. However, direction from the folks at TPCI to Judges has been to reveal and replace inappropriately drawn cards. As Fincastle was saying, it's believed that the deck has a set order, even when that order is unknown. We want to have as little impact on the gamestate as possible, and the common wisdom in Pokemon is that reveal and replace without a shuffle accomplishes that. It's similar to our idea that we don't 'create' penalties - we can't rule that you play without a hand, we can't decide that we're going to shuffle your deck, we can't decide your punishment for playing an extra supporter is to be unable to attack next turn. We do as little as we can to get the gamestate as close as possible to what it should have been, and then we penalize.

Also remember that these penalties can escalate. We've passed most of the big events for the time being, so moving forward (until Regionals) we'll be looking at mostly Tier 1 events. Drawing an extra card is Gameplay Error - Minor, which is a Caution at a tier one event. However, repeated infractions can lead to escalated penalties. After a couple Cautions, escalate to a Warning. If the problem persists, a Prize Penalty can become appropriate. In general, we don't want to escalate higher than a Prize Penalty for GPE Minor, but repeated infractions like this can quickly add up.

I'm not sure if my 'creds are in my sig or not, so...

Three time US Nationals Judge, US Nationals Head Judge, US Nationals Second
Two time Worlds Judge, Worlds Second
 
There are two methods to fix this:
*Reveal-and-replace
*shuffle method

The shuffle method was discussed years ago and was--and remains--extremely unpopular. It teases player superstitions and makes them uncomfortable. Yes, it returns the deck to completely unknown and all cards have the same chance of being drawn just like as in before but it is viewed as less clean of a fix. It creates a better chance for a player fishing for deck information: The player knows what is in the deck (more important in early game than later) unless you also reveal the card, and it makes an "accidental draw" get shuffled away, which is more open to abuse.

I personally don't like it because it introduces the chance for more error. When approaching a game in error, a judge asks questions and players sometimes do not remember or agree on the details. Was a Caitlin/Pokedex played and when? Last turn, this turn, discarded with Ultra Ball, some other reason; and if so, how deep is that ordered part of the deck? It relies on the judge to remember to ask such a question, making the fix more complex. We can all say "well, a good judge should know to to that no matter what!" but that puts players at the mercy of the judge's experience. R&R is easier because it doesn't require as many questions. Makes the judge less reliant on player memory and makes the players less reliant on judge experience.

League Challenges 2015, Tournament Organizer / judge
VA Winter Regionals 2014, Masters division floor judge.
 
The reveal/replace method is not really about "superstition" about the order of the deck. As noted by others here, repairs to the game state should alter it as minimally as possible. Shuffling on this sort of error opens a number of avenues for angle shooting.

Consider the case of a player that is losing, and needs a specific card to turn things around. He "accidentally" draws an extra card, knowing that the deck will be reshuffled. (We will, for the sake of argument, assume that this is a first offense and deemed unintentional, so does not end in disqualification.) You have, by fiat, effectively granted him a second chance at that card. This is why the order of the deck is important, even if it is unknown. Even if the extra draw was truly unintentional, reshuffling the deck still has an impact on the outcome of the game for the same reasons. Judges should strive to minimize such impacts.

A player could also be using the judge as a stalling mechanism. Shuffling takes time.

The principle of the "known unknown" deck order is widely applied in tournament poker. In a Texas Hold'em game, a card exposed on the deal is revealed to all players. That player is dealt what would have been the first burn card, and the exposed card becomes the burn card instead. In this case, only the fouled card has changed; all other players have received the same cards they would have received had no error occurred. The fouled card is revealed to ensure all players have access to the same information. There are many other procedures for various deal irregularities, but the overarching philosophy is "[w]hether the error is able to be corrected or not, subsequent cards dealt should be those that would have come if no error had occurred." (Robert's Rules of Poker, §5.6)

This same philosophy is applied here in Pokémon. The exposed card is revealed to both players, so both have the same advantage of knowing information about the card to come. The game state (namely, the deck order) is altered as little as possible to repair the issue. Then, only after the game state is restored to the best extent possible, would any penalty be applied.
 
I am curious, though, about what would happen if an unintentional reveal like this did provide a major gameplay advantage for one player. Say the person who revealed the top card of their deck has Ether, which only works if the top card of the deck is a Basic Energy. Would a scenario like that still be handled the same way?
 
A Prize Penalty can be used.

I say this based on a different case where a PL would enable a player to take advantage of a Scramble Energy (which provides 1 colorless if a player is tied or winning but 3 of all types if the player has more prizes), what would normally be a PL can be considered for MPL.
 
A Prize Penalty can be used.

I say this based on a different case where a PL would enable a player to take advantage of a Scramble Energy (which provides 1 colorless if a player is tied or winning but 3 of all types if the player has more prizes), what would normally be a PL can be considered for MPL.

Isn't the correct reaction to that not to escalate, but to remind the other player that they don't have to draw prizes for the penalty, and that it will be noted regardless?
 
You have to be careful about going "off book" on penalties, though. If you are thinking about escalation because of an advantage (which is sometimes obvious, but may also be a matter of debate), be sure to get the Head Judge to sign off. This sort of thing makes me feel a little uncomfortable, because you are making a judgement call about how much of an advantage the error is giving. If you try to balance Player A's advantage by giving Player B an advantage too, who is to say that Player A won't immediately follow up this turn with an epic mis-play - and suddenly you have swung the game in B's favor through your own action.

Yes, I know that this can happen anyway, and often does in complex judge situations - but to me the reveal/replace solution is so easy, and quick, I hate to introduce a ton of debate into it. Save that for the "he said/she said" or "did you discard from Acro Bike" debates.
 
Isn't the correct reaction to that not to escalate, but to remind the other player that they don't have to draw prizes for the penalty, and that it will be noted regardless?
In cases like Scramble Energy, that type of situation is one case for the multi-prize card penalty. Taking a PL should not put you at the offender's advantage. If taking the penalty can disadvantage the non-offender, that is what the non-offender needs to consider. If the penalty creates an advantage for the offender, such as activating a scramble energy that is currently in the offender's hand, then escalation is appropriate.

Thinking back on that, the situation with Ether is different. Taking the PL in no way advantages the offender. The prizes, Ether, and the energy card do not interact. Looking at it like that, a warning sounds more appropriate.
 
I don't see escalation based on what card was drawn ever being proper in this case.
 
Back
Top