Player's Intent (What are you doing?)

[PokePop]

Well, you also can't allow people to take back legal actions they meant to make just because they overlooked something that makes is a bad move.

I stupidly replaced a Battle Stadium when up against a Scizor ex because I forgot about it's PokeBody.
I don't get to take that move back. It was a bad decision.
An attack by an ex against a Safeguaded Pokemon is a valid move.
It's just that the attack does nothing.

 

[beatlerat]

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.

This is a ruling question, but it has to do with intent. What if you are facing a Zapdos EX with three Electric Energy and Legendary Ascend a Zapdos EX (three Energy). You say "knock out Zapdos" and go to pull your two prizes (actually touch them, but not look) BEFORE... you discard enough Energy (1), and BEFORE your opponent has drawn a card and has said "you didn't knock him out?".
Your intent was to knock out the Pokemon, but you did not finish the required steps (discard enough Energy) to knock out the Pokemon. What might happen here?

 

[ryanvergel]

This is a ruling question, but it has to do with intent. What if you are facing a Zapdos EX with three Electric Energy and Legendary Ascend a Zapdos EX (three Energy). You say "knock out Zapdos" and go to pull your two prizes (actually touch them, but not look) BEFORE... you discard enough Energy (1), and BEFORE your opponent has drawn a card and has said "you didn't knock him out?".
Your intent was to knock out the Pokemon, but you did not finish the required steps (discard enough Energy) to knock out the Pokemon. What might happen here?

I'd say (even though I'm not pop) that the zapdos wouldbe knocked out. By saying the words "knock out" you intend to do 70 damage, you just forgot to discard. This would be the equivalent of saying "flamethrower knock out" and forgetting to discard the energy. You were obviously able to discard the energy, you merely forgot to do so. If you intended to do 50 damage, you would have said the attack, not the words "knock out". Because those words were uttered, intent is very clear, you meant to do the amount required to knock out, which is 70, you just didn't discard the required lightning energy, The mistake would then be corrected, forcing the play to discard a lightning energy.

 

[beatlerat]

But the point here is now you can not rely soley on the card played, the attack you call, or your INTENT. Every Player has to be sure of what they are doing and then do it. Sometimes I don't think Judges in the lower level competitions hand out enough cautions and warnings because they are mostly local tourneys. I am just as strict with my players at the local and CC's as I would be at a Regional. I really thinks it helps them to make less mistakes at the higher levels because that is what they are used to.
It is going to be up to a judge to rule many of the examples sighted here (other threads), and every judge may rule it differently. This is the gray area that all of us face and it is the toughest part of judging. I still think it makes it better to call the attack, even if you call the wrong one. You, as a player, made the decision to call that attack, and most judges would rule by that (IMO).

 

[DarkLordSigma]

I'm the kind of player who explains his moves and announces exactly what I'm doing. Not only to show my opponent exactly what I'm doing, but it also helps my train of thought.

It peeves me when I come across a player who does everything speedy. I came across one during a rather important match of a rather important tournament, and his speeding really messed me up. (I missed a few of his moves, and I made the wrong moves to counter, and thus lost).

So yes, these days I always request that my player explain what he/she's doing.

 

[Team Cook]

This is a ruling question, but it has to do with intent. What if you are facing a Zapdos EX with three Electric Energy and Legendary Ascend a Zapdos EX (three Energy). You say "knock out Zapdos" and go to pull your two prizes (actually touch them, but not look) BEFORE... you discard enough Energy (1), and BEFORE your opponent has drawn a card and has said "you didn't knock him out?".
Your intent was to knock out the Pokemon, but you did not finish the required steps (discard enough Energy) to knock out the Pokemon. What might happen here?

"Intent" alone is not sufficient. Here's what happened: After stating "knockout" and reaching for his prize cards, the opponent informed him that he was NOT knocked out and that he had 10 (HP) left. With a slightly confused look on the attacking player's face, the opponent stated that it could have been a knock-out if he had discarded an energy.

In this case, letting him discard the energy would not have been letting him COMPLETE his attack. It would have been letting him REDO his attack.

It's was a tough call because the player's intent was clear, but he simply miscalculated the damage required to knock the opponent's Pokémon out. I don't believe you get a second chance to redo your attack if you didn't do enough damage the first time.

 

[ColdFire64]

This is a ruling question, but it has to do with intent. What if you are facing a Zapdos EX with three Electric Energy and Legendary Ascend a Zapdos EX (three Energy). You say "knock out Zapdos" and go to pull your two prizes (actually touch them, but not look) BEFORE... you discard enough Energy (1), and BEFORE your opponent has drawn a card and has said "you didn't knock him out?".
Your intent was to knock out the Pokemon, but you did not finish the required steps (discard enough Energy) to knock out the Pokemon. What might happen here?

This is an excellent scenario. This is why I always tell my opponent to explain what they are doing rather than speeding through the match. If people would just take their time through a match, they wouldn't have to deal with such problems as this.

Usually what I would do in the Zapdos situation (assuming my opponent is the one attacking with the Zapdos) is when my opponent say's K.O., and takes his/her prizes, I would tell them that I cannot be KO'd because of the lack of discarding the energy, therefore only doing 50 damage instead of the 70 damage and ending their turn. As mentioned earlier, letting him discard the energy would not have been letting him COMPLETE his attack, but would have been letting him REDO his attack instead. Allowing people to REDO an attack or a play is a big NO-NO in my book.

Some judges are lenient and allow such re-do's to occur, however I'm not that lenient. Now, even if the opponent touches his/her prizes rather than actually take them, that is still the same thing as calling out your attack and probably assuming that 50 damage knocks it out, or just flat out forgetting to discard the energy to actually make the attack do 70. In either case, the opponent did not specifically mention that they are hitting for 70 damage, nor did they intend to discard the energy right after calling out the attack and THEN taking the prizes...

I believe that once the attack is "called", it cannot be fixed. The same goes for cards being played. If someone places a card down (like a supporter/stadium) but changes their mind, they cannot take back the card if they let go of it because it's already been played.

Such rulings have been made at major sanctioned tournaments before, and I feel that the best way to prevent such nasty scenarios as this is to have these people learn from their mistakes the hard way.

 

[NoPoke]

beetlerat: Your Zapdos 'KO' example is a good one but unfortunately doesn't have a clear answer. At least not for me.

Was it a learning environment?
Light competative play? (eg league and many sanctioned touneys)
Age group matters
How experienced is the player making the mistake?
Is it a very competative tournament eg a qualifier?


As a judge I hope to encourage the players to come to a fair agreement on how to proceede in such dificult cases. Yes I will impose a rulling if I have to. And since I'm required to be impartial and fair if I force a misplay to stand then I'll have to monitor that game much more closely to see that the game continues at the same level of adherance to the rules.

So I'm not trying to judge intent I'm trying to be fair and impartial. At the same time I hope that the players will learn from the error so that it will be less likely to be repeated. This last bit is key and very difficult to get right. Everytime I make a rulling I want it to be less likely that I have to make the same rulling again. I can't say that I get this right all the time but I try.

The hard way isn't the only way to learn and isn't automatically the best way.


If I'm reading the post by TeamCook correctly then TeamCook was the judge. Am I okay with his rulling? Of course I am. He was the judge and makes the call. TeamCook decided that the error was a miscalculation of damage and fixed that error correctly.

 

[blastoise1992]

Yea something about players intent is really bugging me. I swear that the kid I played in my final match evo'd a dark pupitar in to TTar EX which clearly says "Evolves from Pupitar." It caused me a loss oh well nothing I can do now...

 

[BJJ763]

Usually what I would do in the Zapdos situation (assuming my opponent is the one attacking with the Zapdos) is when my opponent say's K.O., and takes his/her prizes, I would tell them that I cannot be KO'd because of the lack of discarding the energy, therefore only doing 50 damage instead of the 70 damage and ending their turn.

So you would be guilty of letting your opponent to take one of their prizes when you knew they shouldn't be able to.

They could then claim "I was about to do that." and get a prize.

 

[Team Cook]

beetlerat: Your Zapdos 'KO' example is a good one but unfortunately doesn't have a clear answer. At least not for me.

Was it a learning environment?
Light competative play? (eg league and many sanctioned touneys)
Age group matters
How experienced is the player making the mistake?
Is it a very competative tournament eg a qualifier?


If I'm reading the post by TeamCook correctly then TeamCook was the judge. Am I okay with his rulling? Of course I am. He was the judge and makes the call. TeamCook decided that the error was a miscalculation of damage and fixed that error correctly.

It was a Ctiy Championship (Katy, Texas CC)
11 to 14 Age Group
Both players are seasoned players
Final match for Championship

Yes I was judging the match. I even requested the head judge and she agreed with me.

 

[Otaku]

I think we've finally gotten to the area where this subject finally has some weight. The Zapdos ex example, especially when you don't say the player's intent works excellently. To make the intent even less clear, say expand with a hypothetical match up:

Player 1 (George) has a Zapdos ex active and a Manectric (whatever version is least stupid) with one (L) attached on his bench. Zapdos has no damage on itself and three Basic Lighting Energy cards attached. Player 2 (Bob) has Dark Hypno active with a Psychic Energy attached. It has 20 damage on itself, and Rocket's Hideout is in play (so it still has 70 HP left). Bob also has a Hidden Legends Lanturn with (L) already attached to itself and no damage on the bench. The prizes are tied, 4-4.

Now, like in earlier posts, George (the Zapdos ex player) says "KO" and goes to take a prize. Bob stops him saying "you didn't do enough damage", pointing out that since Rocket's Hideout is in play, 50 damage won't KO his Dark Hypno.

Did George just forget to discard an Energy, or did he forget about Rocket's Hideout? Maybe he had a Stadium the turn before, but it was Admined away? Maybe he really did just forget to discard. Plus, in this example, it may be in George's best interest to stall and force out the Lanturn, since right now the Dark Hypno is next to useless. Should that factor into your decision?

 

[PokePop]

Yea something about players intent is really bugging me. I swear that the kid I played in my final match evo'd a dark pupitar in to TTar EX which clearly says "Evolves from Pupitar." It caused me a loss oh well nothing I can do now...

Intent doesn't over ride legal evolutions, so your example doesn't really have much to do with intent.
That was a plain, bad misplay of an attack.

 

[PokePop]

Did George just forget to discard an Energy, or did he forget about Rocket's Hideout? Maybe he had a Stadium the turn before, but it was Admined away? Maybe he really did just forget to discard. Plus, in this example, it may be in George's best interest to stall and force out the Lanturn, since right now the Dark Hypno is next to useless. Should that factor into your decision?

Who and how your decision helps should almost never be a factor in a decision like that.
I say "almost" because there are exceptions to every rule, but I can't think of one right now.

Sounds to me like TeamCook made the right call on this as well.
Optional effects are just that: Optional.
Judging intent is useful when trying to clear up a misplay, but it only goes so far. Intent does not trump reality.
A player intends to win the game. They intend to KO their opponent's Pokemon.
That's taking intent too far.
When we're talking "intent", we discussing the intent of a specific action. And barring clues like "Strike and Run for 10" when S&R doesn't do any damage, a judge has to go by what was actually done.

In this case, if the Player had said "70 damage, KO" and took their prize, I might have allowed the discard of the energy, because we have a clear indication that they meant to do 70 damage. But, barring that, and that it was a final match, all we know was that they meant to do the attack, but are not certain how much damage they meant to do, 50 or 70, and so have to go with reality, that they didn't discard an energy card and so we stick with 50 damage.

Sloppy play does have some penalties.

 

[SteveP]

So you would be guilty of letting your opponent to take one of their prizes when you knew they shouldn't be able to.

That's a new one. Being guilty of your opponent's mistake.

I don't see the Zapdos example as being that hard to rule. If the player drew his prize BEFORE discarding the energy, it's just a timing mistake and a caution. If the energy was never discarded after taking the prize, then it appears obvious to me that he meant the first attack and just miscalculated the damage -- another procedure error and caution, requiring him to return the prize without the KO.

The opponent MUST give the player a reasonable amount of time to complete his attack/turn. If the opponent doesn't provide that "reasonable" amount of time for the opponent to resolve his attack/turn, and interrupts the player before he has a chance to complete his actions, regardless that the actions may be slightly out of sequence, then essentially, the opponent is helping the player correct his mistake.

All the opponent has to do is either pause to see if his opponent is done (and doesn't discard the energy) or ask the player if he's done. THEN, he can call over the judge and the ruling will be obvious (the player miscalculated). Otherwise, the judge MAY rule in favor of the player (timing error) and allow the KO.

 

[beatlerat]

In this case, if the Player had said "70 damage, KO" and took their prize, I might have allowed the discard of the energy, because we have a clear indication that they meant to do 70 damage. But, barring that, and that it was a final match, all we know was that they meant to do the attack, but are not certain how much damage they meant to do, 50 or 70, and so have to go with reality, that they didn't discard an energy card and so we stick with 50 damage.

Although I am going to go with "Say your attack, say your damage" (as I said earlier, this is the proper way to attack), in this case there was a difference in just calling the attack and saying "knock out" the pokemon. Although I feel the INTENT was to knock out the Defending Pokemon (I am certain in this case the Player KNEW how much damage he MEANT to do), the gravity of the situation, nerves, what have you may have factored in (I would be excited, too if I was going up 5-1 in prizes...as it was, he got wiped out).

And it makes no difference when and where this match (or scenario) takes place, the ruling should be the same...everytime.

 

[PokePop]

Yeah, but intending to KO the opponent's Pokemon is too vague an "intent" for me.
The question is, did he intend to discard an energy card? That is the (optional) action in question.

 

[ColdFire64]

Yeah, but intending to KO the opponent's Pokemon is too vague an "intent" for me.
The question is, did he intend to discard an energy card? That is the (optional) action in question.

Again, if people would just slow down and do things in the correct order rather than trying to do multiple plays/actions at once, we wouldn't have problems like these. Even if the players are playing relatively slow/steady, we can only judge on their actions based off their intent.

I also agree with TeamCook's ruling. I also don't believe you get a second chance to redo your attack if you didn't do enough damage the first time, or let alone do it correctly to make a KO the first time. Had the player attacking with Zapdos Ex said 70 damage, KO, and then grabbed the prizes without discarding the energy, that's a different story. This is because he "intended" to do 70 damage, but forgot to discard the energy after attacking. In the scenario with TeamCook, the player simply miscalculated the attack, because he/she didn't "intend" to discard the energy to do the extra damage in the first place...

So you would be guilty of letting your opponent to take one of their prizes when you knew they shouldn't be able to.

They could then claim "I was about to do that." and get a prize.

No, I wouldn't be guilty of that at all. The opponent just simply didn't call out the attack properly. To me, he intended to do 50 damage because he didn't discard the energy required to do 70. If players don't call out their actions/attacks properly, then how in the hell are we supposed to know what they intended to do?? I am not a mind reader.

For all we know, the player in question with the Zapdos was probably thinking that 50 damage would have KO'd his opponent's Pokemon without realizing that the Pokemon he is attacking would have 10 damage left. Once he realized he would have to discard an energy in order to knock out that Pokemon and made the mistake of not doing it in the first place, it could be considered cheating in a way to attempt to re-do an attack. Again, once this attack is called out, you cannot go back and re-do your attack. Letting him discard the energy would not have been letting him COMPLETE his attack. It would have been letting him RE-DO his attack, which there is no such thing as re-do's. I've seen such rulings at many of my events and some other events in the west coast, so I assume that such a ruling is pretty universal.

If we had everyone playing nice and rolling over and letting people re-do their attacks, then what would we expect next? I feel that the best way to prevent such nasty scenarios as this is to have these people learn from their mistakes the hard way and not allow them to re-do an attack or take back a card that's already been played (considered played when they let go of it but want to take it back).

 

[SteveP]

Chris, I think you mean "take backs" aren't allowed in Pokemon. BTW, can you quote me that ruling?

It all comes down to how strictly judges want to enforce timing. Personally, I don't strictly enforce timing when judging Pokemon.

In Lord of the Rings TCG, timing is EVERYTHING and strictly enforced. LOTR is action-based, a game of give-and-take. You alternate individual actions and responses-to-actions with your opponent. Thus, proper timing is essential in order to avoid mistakes.

Pokemon TCG is turn-based. Timing is still important, but not as strictly enforced since timing ambiquities are common. Thus, some judges who've never delt with TCGs like LOTR may not be as forceful on timing.

I certainly hope Pokemon never rises to the same level as LOTR with regards to timing enforcement.

JMO.

 

[NoPoke]

BJJ didn't mean that you are responsible for the consequences of your opponents mistakes. Rather that BOTH players are responsible for the correct operation of the game. And neither player should be able to profit from failing to follow those procedures. In particular I know that my opponent could knock me out but I let them make a string of minor procedural errors culminating in them going for a prize so that I have a chance of calling a judge and escaping the KO... The flip side is that I'm not required to help my opponent defeat me. I'm not surprised that TeamCook found it a difficult call to make.

If you want to get all rule-book about it then no attack was declared in the Zapdos example. Depending upon how the game was being played at the table and elsewhere in the competition it is possible that a judge would insist that the correct procedure is followed and insist that the attack is announced properly and followed up by specifying the damage being done.

REL0 - friendly play - The prize is taken and after some discussion between the players the energy gets discarded.

REL 1 - competative play younger or less experienced players - The judge decides to slow the game down and asks the attacking player to 'do it properly', then watches to see what happens. Afterwards the judge explains how it is supposed to be done.

REL1 - competitive play experienced players - The Judge decides that KO means Electron Crush, and that the error is primarily one of miscalculation.

REL2- serious competative play - KO isn't a legal attack name so no attack took place. A slew of minor procedural errors pick up cautions warnings etc. A judge is likely to open with a command to 'Stop and do it properly'.


BTW I support TeamCooks' rulling not because of any personal view on take backs or REDOs but because HE WAS THE JUDGE AT THE TOURNAMENT.