We've argued this once before. During that discussion, some judges said they'd allow a deck search after a discard pile search IF the player verbalized their intent to "interrupt" the Premier Ball action. If they didn't verbalize, the judge would make an assumption. Don't tell me that's not imposing intent, ESPECIALLY since the discard pile search is a "free-at-any-time" action.
Slow play
- Thread starter afstandopleren
- Start date
- Status
This is what I fundamentally disagree with, though.
I do completely agree that you're slow playing/stalling if you know you have the game on time this turn, so you draw, shuffle through your hand a few times, hover an energy over a Pokemon, look at your hand again, declare Cosmic Power, look at your hand some more, do Cosmic Power. Then look at your hand some more, ask to see your opponents discard pile, hover a supporter over the playmat, then put it back in your hand, look through your hand some more, etc.
However, if you draw, attach an energy, play a supporter, look through your deck, shuffle, declare and use cosmic, play a Uxie to use set-up, play a SSU to try and use Uxie again. Fail the flip. Play yet another SSU, hit the flip. Then drop Uxie again, and draw your hand. Night Maintenance a few cards back into your deck. Use a Luxury Ball to search for a second Claydol, use a Cosmic Power. Use a Warp Point. Poke Turn up a Crobat and drop it back down to Flash Bite something, etc., etc. I don't think anything is wrong with that. You're participating in lively gameplay and taking legal actions. I don't think this falls under stalling, slowplay, or gamesmanship at all.
Good discussion going on here.
Also, I once had a judge tell me after a Celio's Network that I was stuck with the first Pokemon I pulled out of my deck. In that situation, I pulled two out and was about to decide which one to keep. Because my opponent saw both Pokemon (because I laid them down face-up in my play-area), the judge ruled that the first Pokemon I pulled was the Pokemon I showed to my opponent. Only my opponent had the power to "unwind" the action and let me keep the second Pokemon instead. It was a classic example of a judge imposing intent. It happens. It happened to me. So don't go telling me that judges don't or can't do it.
Yes it is but once you play premier ball you must do the action required first before do anything else. Where in your post did you mention that they made their intent know they were not choosing the discard they were just checking it? Nowhere. That is exactly why check your discard first then play the premier ball. That way there is no doubt.
evil psyduck, the purpose to bring up the Premier Ball example was to illustration that judges, when "actively" judging, can and do interrupt when a player's intent is ambiguous or doubtful. So, in the case of a 5-minute, end-game turn, especially when turns have averaged about 1 minute before that, well, it's pretty obvious what's going on, yeah? I suppose you can just sit back and let it happen, or step in and make corrections. Depending on what you do or don't do, some might label you an overly "activist" judge while others might label you a "whimpy" judge. Either way, good judges have to make tough calls, or like what sometimes happens in pro sports, let the fouls "fly" so that the players can decide the outcome. Either of these approaches to judging will attract critism or praise.
I'm pretty certain that's not what's supposed to happen. I've always been under the impression that once you started shuffling your deck, that is the end of that use of the supporter/trainer/etc.
Just because it happens doesn't mean it should happen, right?
I agree, but my point was to show that judges, when actively judging, sometimes impose intent.
And the judge was right. Thcard say choose A basic OR evolution meaning 1 card.
Not to but in, but I think Steve is saying that he was looking through his deck, pulled a Pokemon, and then continued to look through his deck and pulled out another, and then was deciding which Pokemon to take, when the judge made that ruling.
This is a common practice and I've never seen it be ruled that way.
That is what he did wrong. Choosing two pokemon and laying them down. He did say he put them both down. That is what he did wrong. Choosing two pokemon and laying them down. It does say A basic OR evolution. No different then playing a pokemon or your bench. Once you lay it down that is choice and if it is a mistake up to your opponent to let you rewind.. He picked the first one layed it down so that is the one he has chosen. Sloppy play if anything. Real simple. If you see one you might want to take put it on top of the deck and then check for others. If you find three then very easy to spread them and look at which one you want before laying any down.
Did you appeal to the HJ? I doubt that ruling would have stood. Also, judges make errors too. Dont lump in "all judges" bc ONE judge did this ONE time to you.
Rulings change, errata occurs, not all judges are up to date on changes. It happens.
You know what....I've yet to meet the "perfect player" either. If all players were perfect, then we wouldn't need judges, eh?
Keith
Although I admit that I can't find a specific ruling one way or another, I've always been under the impression that a deck search ends when you shuffle your deck. There are plenty of legit reasons for pulling out Pokemon from your deck and laying them on the board. I agree that it's probably less sloppy to just keep the Pokemon off the board and on top of the deck or something of that sort, but in my mind, this was an incorrect call.
Also very true.
It WAS the HJ who ruled it that way (regarding the Celio). I think he's a great judge, even though I didn't agree. And Keith, please don't generalize my comments as lumping all judges into one. My point to using the Celio's Network example was to show how some judges might impost intent.
evil psyduck is an example of someone who will impose intent if he feels the player is doing something ambiguous or not exactly to his interpretation of what order you have to do things. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just using his own words to prove a point. Judges can and DO impose intent at times, if the situation warrants.
Going back to my original debate about a long, game-ending turn. The guidelines clearly state that players who engage in prolonging their turn by using the full-extent of the recommended time limits for various actions (ie., shuffling, search), are "almost certainly stalling." So, can players prolong their turn by taking the full-extent all possible legal actions? If you accept what the guidelines say about time-limit-abuse, I don't see how you can reject numerous-actions-abuse. To me, that's hypocritical.
(Fictitious Example)
Player: Shhhuuuffffllle... Ssseaaarrrch... Attttaaaaach... Thhhiinnnnk... Cccooounnnt...
Judge: "Speed it up, or I'll penalize you!"
Player: Play, draw, play, search, shuffle, play, search, shuffle, attach, think, count, think, play, draw, think, bury, look, play, retrieve, show, shuffle, count, think, look, retreat, think, ....
Judge: "That's better." Walks away.
Opponent: Sigh...
evil psyduck is an example of someone who will impose intent if he feels the player is doing something ambiguous or not exactly to his interpretation of what order you have to do things. I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just using his own words to prove a point. Judges can and DO impose intent at times, if the situation warrants.
Going back to my original debate about a long, game-ending turn. The guidelines clearly state that players who engage in prolonging their turn by using the full-extent of the recommended time limits for various actions (ie., shuffling, search), are "almost certainly stalling." So, can players prolong their turn by taking the full-extent all possible legal actions? If you accept what the guidelines say about time-limit-abuse, I don't see how you can reject numerous-actions-abuse. To me, that's hypocritical.
(Fictitious Example)
Player: Shhhuuuffffllle... Ssseaaarrrch... Attttaaaaach... Thhhiinnnnk... Cccooounnnt...
Judge: "Speed it up, or I'll penalize you!"
Player: Play, draw, play, search, shuffle, play, search, shuffle, attach, think, count, think, play, draw, think, bury, look, play, retrieve, show, shuffle, count, think, look, retreat, think, ....
Judge: "That's better." Walks away.
Opponent: Sigh...
Last edited:
But I just think that opens the door for a lot of weirdness. Who's to say that you're even aware of the time limit? Maybe you're just trying to set-up to have the best possible defense? I just don't like the idea of doing legal things possibly resulting in a penalty. I can understand if those actions have no affect, but if you're playing the game -- and just taking a long turn doing it -- I strongly feel that you shouldn't be punished for it.
Nor do I, unless it's obvious that you're doing it merely to monopolize the remaining time. This whole debate started when I pointed out the rule that said you can't make ineffectual plays to eat clock time. Then, someone "piped up" and said there's no such thing as an action that doesn't have an effect on the game, basically that the guideline is meaningless. I don't believe that at all.
batmylashes
New Member
If you're not doing anything against the rules, if you're making legal plays, then you shouldn't be penalized for it. I completely agree with wanting to make sure that I have all possible counterattacks covered just in case, I wouldn't call that stalling.
I do agree with SteveP though too, if there's obvious actions taken that have no effect and are specifically made to waste time, that shouldn't be allowed to continue.
It's a hard line to draw between someone making sure they're not missing anything, and someone who wants to run down time.
NoPoke
Active Member
I agree that the guideline is not meaningless. But that doesn't mean that it currently has a significant impact upon play. I would be against its removal from the guidelines but also caution against its use in the current format.
This is what we were told at Worlds 06 its not official till you shuffle.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
This is the only time I've heard it announced but that has always been the general "agreement" at all the tournaments I've atteneded.
Last edited:
Box of Fail
New Member
I believe you are allowed to alter your choice in a deck search until you have shuffled.
Bottom line is this...to avoid a judge having to rule on your match, play at a lively pace, dont make errors, watch your oppo to make sure they dont err (ie..try to cosmic power after you used mesprit lock on your turn), dont sit in "bhudda mode" considering your place in the game for a loooooong time, etc etc.
Trust me, at some point, a judge is going to have to be involved in one of your matches somewhere. Act polite, respond truthfully (even if it costs you), appeal the ruling if you disagree or want confirmation and play with great SotG. We are ALL there to have a great time and experience.
Keith
Trust me, at some point, a judge is going to have to be involved in one of your matches somewhere. Act polite, respond truthfully (even if it costs you), appeal the ruling if you disagree or want confirmation and play with great SotG. We are ALL there to have a great time and experience.
Keith
- Status