Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Player's Intent (What are you doing?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, what if a player calculates the wrong damage and says I'll attack for X-damage? The judge catches it. So, does the judge go with the "intended" damage, which was wrong, or does he step in and correct the error?

Also, I know some players have a tendency to misspeak their intent, and opponents who take advantage of such mistakes. For example, I remember a player using a Dunsparce to KO a Pokemon mistakenly said, "I'll Strike and Run for 10 damage to KO your Pokemon." What was his intent? To Strike and Run, or to do Sudden Flash for 10 damage to KO the Pokemon?

Personally, I don't always rule on the "spoken word." I rule on the facts and the context. "Intent" is often too vague. I don't know how many times my wife has misspoken, then corrected herself (when I poked fun at her) saying, "You know what I meant!"

JMO.
 
Last edited:
A Judge (and players on their own, for that matter) should always apply the correct damage amount if it was calculated incorrectly.
 
SteveP said:
So, what if a player calculates the wrong damage and says I'll attack for X-damage? The judge catches it. So, does the judge go with the "intended" damage, which was wrong, or does he step in and correct the error?

Also, I know some players have a tendency to misspeak their intent, and opponents who take advantage of such mistakes. For example, I remember a player using a Dunsparce to KO a Pokemon mistakenly said, "I'll Strike and Run for 10 damage to KO your Pokemon." What was his intent? To Strike and Run, or to do Sudden Flash for 10 damage to KO the Pokemon?

Personally, I don't always rule on the "spoken word." I rule on the facts and the context. "Intent" is often too vague. I don't know how many times my wife has misspoken, then corrected herself (when I poked fun at her) saying, "You know what I meant!"

JMO.
Click to expand...

This is exactly why it's better to announce the attack and end effect. Yes, you can mix them up (Strike and Run and 10 damage), but it's a lot better then calling one... and it is wrong (so theres no indication of what you really meant).
 
SteveP said:
Also, I know some players have a tendency to misspeak their intent, and opponents who take advantage of such mistakes. For example, I remember a player using a Dunsparce to KO a Pokemon mistakenly said, "I'll Strike and Run for 10 damage to KO your Pokemon." What was his intent? To Strike and Run, or to do Sudden Flash for 10 damage to KO the Pokemon?
Click to expand...
Good Choice. In this case, The Player said Strike and Run. The Judge has a clear and defined attack to rule by. There is no 10 damage because Strike and Run was the attack, not Sudden Flash.

Also, If you are NOT attacking, let the other player know you are finished.
 
But from what I've experienced over the years, me and my friends sometimes don't clarify what moves we're going to make with each other at league play because both players know what we're talking about. I tell everyone amm the moves I'm doing as I play. When I say quick search, I search. I tell them what energy I play down and each move I make.

Also here's one thing. I'm a slow thinker and some people accuse me of stalling when I think. And when I rush myself, I am prone into making misplays. I'm not the best player, but I know what I should do and what I shouldn't do when it comes to playing a game.

There was this guy who came into my league not so long ago, and I originally thought he has trouble hearing(which he doesn't). I point out to him what I'm going to do and when I make a move that's legal, I write down on a piece of paper (with a Judge's supervision) on what I do when I see him making facial expression that states "What are you doing? Can you do that?" The judge writes the info down on whether I can or can't make certain moves.
 
beatlerat said:
Good Choice. In this case, The Player said Strike and Run. The Judge has a clear and defined attack to rule by. There is no 10 damage because Strike and Run was the attack, not Sudden Flash
Click to expand...
But, if judges are required to enforce intent, then Sudden Flash was obviously the player's intent.

Also, by just announcing the attack name instead of requiring the additional announcement of the attack's side effects, you avoid ambiquities caused by mispoken effects.

Furthermore, I've heard players say, "I'll play TV Reporter," then mistakenly lay down something else. Was their "intent" to play TV Reporter or to play the card that was laid down?

And Blastoise-shellshocker makes a good point about cautious players who are ever-fearful of making mistakes. We really have to be careful about turning Pokemon competitive play into a game of "living off" your opponents' mistakes.

Intent is important, but so is everything else. Judges must put everything into context before making a ruling and not rely soley on intent.

That's my point.
 
Didn't read any post but the first, but I agree with one thing: all players, at all levels, should always declare what they are doing. It doesn't take that long to say "Power Lariat" etc...
 
SteveP said:
But, if judges are required to enforce intent, then Sudden Flash was obviously the player's intent.

Also, by just announcing the attack name instead of requiring the additional announcement of the attack's side effects, you avoid ambiquities caused by mispoken effects.

Furthermore, I've heard players say, "I'll play TV Reporter," then mistakenly lay down something else. Was their "intent" to play TV Reporter or to play the card that was laid down?

And Blastoise-shellshocker makes a good point about cautious players who are ever-fearful of making mistakes. We really have to be careful about turning Pokemon competitive play into a game of "living off" your opponents' mistakes.

Intent is important, but so is everything else. Judges must put everything into context before making a ruling and not rely soley on intent.

That's my point.
Click to expand...

the tv reporter thing is kind of different though. if you say "i'll play tv reporter," but put down a different card, there's no way to actually prove you have a tv reporter in your hand (unless you like, played "scott" the turn before or whatever), so you can't be FORCED to follow through with that. saying you are going to play a card and slammin' down a different one is different than announcing an order from one of your already in-play cards.
 
benlugia - If someone were to play a Scott against me, and say, "I use TV Reporter," I'd stop them and ask them what they're doing. Since they said they would use TV Reorter, I would let them switch the Scott for the TVR if they had one in their hand. However, if they didn't have the TVR in their hand, I would not let them take the move back.


This is a very complicated issue. There are many things to concider in each example.
 
Similar thing happened to me yesterday: guy quicksearches while doing that evolves D. Flaafy, equips ATM [Rock] to bench sand dammage T-Tar and brineys active D. Pupitar that was almost dead and equips a dark and Rocks for 2 kos and wins. I didn't even see him take with the quicksearch and he might have taken two things.
 
Flaming_Spinach said:
benlugia - If someone were to play a Scott against me, and say, "I use TV Reporter," I'd stop them and ask them what they're doing. Since they said they would use TV Reorter, I would let them switch the Scott for the TVR if they had one in their hand. However, if they didn't have the TVR in their hand, I would not let them take the move back.


This is a very complicated issue. There are many things to concider in each example.
Click to expand...

no--you misread it. i meant played scott the turn BEFORE where they searched out tv reporter, then, on their next turn, lets say, slams down steven's advice and says "i use tv reporter". well, in this situation, you actually KNOW the card is in the person's hand, yet, you really can't force them to play it when they meant "steven's advice," even though they said "tv reporter."
 
Flaming_Spinach said:
benlugia - If someone were to play a Scott against me, and say, "I use TV Reporter," I'd stop them and ask them what they're doing. Since they said they would use TV Reorter, I would let them switch the Scott for the TVR if they had one in their hand. However, if they didn't have the TVR in their hand, I would not let them take the move back.
Click to expand...
Naw, you can't have it both ways, each time being in your favor. Either they take back the Scott and start over, or they MUST play the Scott, regardless of whether they have TV Reporter or not. You can't force your opponent to reveal whether he's got a TV Reporter or not.

IMO, a card actually laid down takes precedence over an incorrect announcement. This is yet another example of saying one thing but doing something else. What's the intent? Thus, it's sometimes impossible for a judge to determine the "true" intent. You gotta look at the "whole" picture to make the proper ruling.

Ben, my point with the TV Reporter example was to show how "intent" is only a portion of what a Judge uses to make a ruling.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Steve.

The player motives behind 'playing the wrong card' and 'announcing the wrong attack' are often completley different.
Someone who plays the wrong card without announcing a move contrary to the card on the text most likely intended to play the card as written, but a half second later realized that such a play would be hinder that his/her chances of winning. (example-playing a S!TM then saying 'whoops, that'd KO my active' and then trying to take the card back)

This is not the same as playing a Scott and announcing 'I'll play do TVR for three'

To illustrate this point further, I've seen players (especially younger ones) get overly anxious during a tournament match, and declare an attack that is incongruous with the 'attack effects' that they are describing ('strike and run for 10', for example) the player clearly intended to Sudden Flash, but merely slippled under pressure.
Players should be discouraged, but NOT penalized for this action IMO.
 
Yeah, I've seen a lot of that Sudden Flash / Strike and Run misannouncing of attack. People just get mistaken over the attack names since they both start with an "S." What I hate most about this is that the person who mistakes the attack goes "Sudden Flash" then starts looking through their deck, and then the opponent goes "OPP! Sorry, you said Sudden Flash! JUDGE!"

Just use common sense people. If they say one thing and do the other, their mind is obviously set on doing the action of the other attack - they just confused the attack names. If you are going to be that strict over human error, then you shouldn't be playing the game.

On the other hand, when it comes to a person playing a card, and then doing the action of the card, I would say that they cannot take back what they have done. Once the card hits the table and your hand no longer touches it, you are using that card. If you are not thinking straight and realize that you are KO'ing your own Pokemon by doing that S!TM, too bad, you obviously were not thinking through your actions and should had thought more about them.

With the Dunsparce example, the player intended on using Strike and Run and then proceeded to do so. It's just a simple naming mistake. It's obvious the player was not trying to cheat or anything by doing so. Be lenient.

However, with the S!TM example, the player did not think through their actions. It is a MISPLAY, not just verbally misnaming an attack. Once people take their hand off the card they have played, they are using that card.
 
Last edited:
Okay, how about this. A player has both Surprise! and Swoop! in his hand. He wants to Swoop! and says so, but he mistakenly lays down a Surprise! Is he required to carry out the Surprise!, if he can?

Announcing and playing the wrong card from your hand is no different from announcing the wrong attack, in my rulebook. As a judge, you've got to be consistant with your rulings. Some judges allow players to correct mis-announced actions, other judges don't. If you're a good, consistant judge, you don't mix the two.

I tend to side with Weedler and WPM. Obvious mis-announcements that contradict performed actions ARE generally reverseable when I'm the judge.
 
Last edited:
Well in that case, I would rule on your side Steve. It's just a mistake of putting down the wrong card. It's not putting down S!TM and then going "Ooops, I am de-evolving my Pokemon and KOing it, I take it back," which would be a misplay and the player's own fault. The player intended on putting down Swoop.
 
Remember, Pokemon Tournaments are, by and large, judged at REL 1 (or the POP equivalent).
Even at Worlds, players were allowed to correct obvious misplays. Repeated misplays led to Cautions before escalating to Warnings and higher penalties were VERY rare.

Please bear that in mind in Local tournaments. It hardly makes sense to be harsher at a local tournament that the World Championship is judged.
 
Judges aren't required to enforce intent. Primarily because it is their subjective opinion as to what the players intent actually was. I failed mind-reading 101 and Pop's magic 8 ball broke ages ago. So:-

Stop the game, rewind if necessary, get the player to be clear about what they are doing, finally apply a penalty if deemed appropriate. The game has to have moved on significantly before I'd force a player to play an accidentally revealed card even without saying the cards name!

This goes for dropping the wrong card from your hand, misnaming attacks, miscalulations of damage. All are minor game play errors. Fix it and move on.

WPM said:
Once people take their hand off the card they have played, they are using that card.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone from POP would make that statement. Especially as it leaves the door open to rules lawyering... "I didn't take my hand off the card" etc....

That said its a good habit to think before you act. And should be encoraged but maybe not in quite such a draconian manner.
 
Last edited:
Yah, I don't have a policy about what it means to play a card (ie., if you take your hand off it, it's played). Nevertheless, as in the example of the Surprise!, if the played card was laid on the table AND properly announced, that's pretty "cut-n-dry." Noticing later that the played card would have an adverse effect doesn't justify a rewind.

Nevertheless, it's sometimes fuzzy about what's a misplay (or mistake) versus what's an ambiguous action.
 
Last edited:
It is definitely difficult to judge intent. There would be a lot of players unhappy with me if I ruled that what they said had to be done every time. People get nervous, both young and old. I had plenty of that go on just this past Sunday at a CC, mainly younger kids in the 10 and under.

It does do a lot of good to emphasize communication. Too often do I have to deal with players who just put cards down without a word. This makes it difficult as a player and as a judge to sometimes follow what someone is doing. I try to clearly announce what I am doing, and like has already been mentioned, you do get an idea early of whether you need to give a full explanation to your opponent or if you can summarize what you are doing during your turn.

I'm also glad to see posts like NoPoke's and PokePop's. I had someone tell me back in June last year that Worlds was a lot more strict about things like taking your hand off means the card must be played, or that calling out attacks that would do nothing (Example: an EX attacking a Pokemon with Safeguard), are set in stone as soon as something is spoken, and can never be taken back.

So unless I'm misinterpreting a post, I'm glad to hear this, as Worlds doesn't seem like it would be as fun for players, going by what I've read from many people, if judges were stricter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top