DaddyPlaysTCG
New Member
Hi everybody,
First thank you PokePop for your answer in the Ask the Rules Team section. I hopefully understand the mechanics now.
A few comments about the Ask the Rules Team section since I don't know where to post that:
— Why sticky broken links :-? "Get a rule book here!": the URL is now https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-tcg/rules
— I searched the compendium, google searched the site, then browsed the forum and found it mostly empy, then registered, got confused that the forum was a lot less empy now, read the "Read before posting" sticky post, got confused that I couldn't find a search tool (I was tired... suggestions: add an icon next to the search box, or tell where to find it in the sticky post), checked out in vain a few pages back for similar questions, and... just posted my question. Not sure is this was the intended process
So did my browser bug or is the Ask the Rules Team restricted to members only? Not sure why you'd want that. Afraid that people see how helpful you are and come flooding you with questions?
Now, about the answer itself “You are confusing "doing something for no effect" with "doing something and the effect being blocked"”, I want to point out that we're getting uncomfortably close to word plays here (anything goes, we wouldn't know how new cards interact until TPCi gives specific rulings for these interactions). We want algorithmic answers from TPCi. Board change is clear, pending effects applied to Pokémon or players are rather clear, but this “I do something yet I don't do anything” business is murky waters.
“So you can play something that has a valid target for its effect, and then an Ability (or something else) could negate that effect from taking place.”
Now THAT's perfectly clear: can-play = has a valid target. No need to get into the fishy business of no-effect vs. blocked-effect, or to make sense out of the "board state itself" from the compendium's Eneporter vs. Unnerve question. This makes clear e.g. why Guzma can be played on a benched Pyroar and why nothing happens (because, if it was that effect business, I'd argue I did apply the switch effect, so even if that failed I should continue with the ”if you do” switch my own Active part).
My humble 2c is that this (1) should find its way into the compendium and (2) supersede the older ruling (and mindset) that you can't play a Trainer for no effect. Yes, I understand the distinction between “effect” (that is applied or possibly blocked) and “board state” (so a card can have an effect yet not result in board state change), but that's not how most players currently speak/think, and what's the point of going the difficult route with many dark corners? Just forget ”no effect” and focus on “valid targets”, we can easily know if we can play a card or not.
First thank you PokePop for your answer in the Ask the Rules Team section. I hopefully understand the mechanics now.
A few comments about the Ask the Rules Team section since I don't know where to post that:
— Why sticky broken links :-? "Get a rule book here!": the URL is now https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-tcg/rules
— I searched the compendium, google searched the site, then browsed the forum and found it mostly empy, then registered, got confused that the forum was a lot less empy now, read the "Read before posting" sticky post, got confused that I couldn't find a search tool (I was tired... suggestions: add an icon next to the search box, or tell where to find it in the sticky post), checked out in vain a few pages back for similar questions, and... just posted my question. Not sure is this was the intended process
So did my browser bug or is the Ask the Rules Team restricted to members only? Not sure why you'd want that. Afraid that people see how helpful you are and come flooding you with questions?
Now, about the answer itself “You are confusing "doing something for no effect" with "doing something and the effect being blocked"”, I want to point out that we're getting uncomfortably close to word plays here (anything goes, we wouldn't know how new cards interact until TPCi gives specific rulings for these interactions). We want algorithmic answers from TPCi. Board change is clear, pending effects applied to Pokémon or players are rather clear, but this “I do something yet I don't do anything” business is murky waters.
“So you can play something that has a valid target for its effect, and then an Ability (or something else) could negate that effect from taking place.”
Now THAT's perfectly clear: can-play = has a valid target. No need to get into the fishy business of no-effect vs. blocked-effect, or to make sense out of the "board state itself" from the compendium's Eneporter vs. Unnerve question. This makes clear e.g. why Guzma can be played on a benched Pyroar and why nothing happens (because, if it was that effect business, I'd argue I did apply the switch effect, so even if that failed I should continue with the ”if you do” switch my own Active part).
My humble 2c is that this (1) should find its way into the compendium and (2) supersede the older ruling (and mindset) that you can't play a Trainer for no effect. Yes, I understand the distinction between “effect” (that is applied or possibly blocked) and “board state” (so a card can have an effect yet not result in board state change), but that's not how most players currently speak/think, and what's the point of going the difficult route with many dark corners? Just forget ”no effect” and focus on “valid targets”, we can easily know if we can play a card or not.
