Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Ruling about what is Reversible

mrblimack

New Member
Hi,

Me and my friends were arguing on a ruling. The question was:

If I play N, put my hand on top of my deck and then realized I already did a supporter. Can I take back my cards if:

A : Both player agree on the number of cards in my hand
B : I can prove with the discard, and cards played, how many cards I had in hand (exemple my opponents N me, then I drew my card at my turn, attached an energy, used Skyla for muscle band and then used N(as a mistake).
C : I can tell exactly what are the four cards on top of my deck (if my hand was 4 cards)

The principal point that we were arguing it's that it is reversible since they aren't shuffled? I saw a ruling about Caitlin, saying that if I use Caitlin, put 4 cards on the bottom of my deck and then draw 4 cards. If I forgot or show to quickly the number of cards to my opponent, it was possible with a judge to tell what the 4 cards are and if the judge says its correct, then everything is fine.

Is it possible to have a large explanation, with possible exemple of reversible actions and why, and some no reversible action and why, or maybe a link. I think it's very important to know this kind of situation.

Thank you so much

mrblimack
 
Not a question that we can give an answer to in ATRT because this is a Judge ruling not a card interaction ruling.
I'll move this over to the Judges' Chambers forum where you can get answers.
 
Hello mrblimack,

A judge can use a number of tools in an attempt to fix the game. Questions seeking the answers to A, B, and C are one way. But it isn't like all three of those have to be perfect. For example, maybe your opponent doesn't remember the number of cards in your hand. The number of cards you drew due to the opponent's N and then the cards you played on the turn is then helpful. You being able to tell me the exact 4 cards is also helpful. What can make this irreversible is if there is confusion or disagreement about what happened on your turn to an extent that a judge is not confident in determining how many cards you had in your hand before the N.

Because of the severity of this error and the effort it takes to fix it, I would call this GPE-Major and use at least the recommended penalties.
 
Sorry PokePop didnt know i was at the wrong place :/

ShadowCard So is this more like the judge decide and this might not be a GPE-Major if it is easy to fix it (for example by A, B or C)?
 
By my read of the situation, a judge would be trying to determine if this is a Game Play Error - Major or a Game Play Error - Severe. If there is enough evidence from the cards in play and in the discard and agreement from both players that you did indeed have four cards in your hand and that those four cards went on top of your deck and were not shuffled in, then play can be rewound to the point of the error. I would issue a Game Play Error Major to you and a Game Play Error - Minor to your opponent for failure to monitor the game state.

However, if both players disagreed on what happened and there was not enough evidence from the cards in play for me to feel confident in rewinding play back to before the playing of the N, then I would be left with a game state I can't repair and would issue a Game Play Error Severe for which the penalty is Game Loss at all Tiers of play. Your opponent still gets a GPE - Minor.

So that is big thing about a misplay being reversible. If we can fix it, then some penalties are assessed but the game goes on. If we can't, the game is over.

Head Judge Cities Tournament
 
RichD has very good points. Some judges may go different directions.

If your 2nd supporter was not N and was instead a Professor Sycamore, then I would call it GPE-Minor because that category works with drawing/revealing cards you weren't supposed to and the rewind is easier (reveal and replace the cards you did draw--hopefully you were stopped before drawing all 7--and put the cards you discarded back into your hand). If your 2nd Supporter was AZ and you put the pokemon back in your hand, I would call it GPE-Minor and put that pokemon and all cards attached to it back into play. If your 2nd Supporter was Lysandre and the switch is completed, I would rewind the switch and call it GPE-Minor.

Back to Supporters that have you put the hand into the deck...

A judge could look at the situation and with all questions answered perfectly and all as it should be, say "that was easy, sounds like GPE-minor" and fix and penalize accordingly.

I would say that even if all questions are answered perfectly and all as it should be, because of amount of questions that had to be asked and the game since the opponent's N had to be recounted in detail, it qualifies for GPE-Major because all of that effort counts as GPE-Major. Effort is effort, whether or not it was easy. I also think that with cards like N that are so dangerous, the importance of keeping track of what is going on must be emphasized. I might reduce the penalty to Warning instead of PL based on other circumstances, such as age division and experience, with the alert that a second error of similar nature will get the prize loss.

And if the questions are not answered perfectly and there is less confidence that the game is as it should be? Some judges will take the imperfect answers from A, B, and C and get the hand/game to a level they seem somewhat confident with and use the fact that they are not fully confident to say that confusion exists in the game to make this GPE-Major (which is the definition of GPE-Major). If there is enough evidence to think your hand had 4 but there are lingering questions about it being 3 or 5, the judge can call it GPE-Major and use the prize loss penalty to balance advantage or confusion in the game.

I really don't want to assess a game loss for this specifically. The hand is unshuffled on the top of the deck. It is a matter of figuring out how many cards were in the hand. The opponent's N should make it some what easy. The Supporter you played on your turn may make it a little easier (Juniper to 7, Shauna to 5, Colress could be complicated). Maybe the turn was complicated with a Diving Draw, some Propagation and Ultra Ball, a Set Up Shaymin EX, Super Scoop Up, Trainer's Mail... If it is that confusing, I would see about the multi-prize card penalty. A GL for putting your hand on top of your deck... I guess if you've earned it then you've earned it, but what a way to lose!

tbh, the fact that you can name the 4 cards on top of your deck is enough to make me confident you had at least those 4 cards in your hand. From that point, you're definitely not looking at a GL. You're looking for a way to avoid the PL, which would be a way to double confirm you did not have more/less than 4 cards in hand.

League Challenges 2015, Tournament Organizer / judge
VA Winter Regionals 2014, Masters division floor judge.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top