Otaku
Active Member
I am going to start from the topic, because I believe some bad wording and side debates over other rulings (related or not) may be confusing the issue. As a quick foreword, I italicize card names, as I find this brings some clarity since Pokemon has many terms that are character names, card names, effect names, etc. that may also be card names. I apologize if this does not work for you, but this is my practice.
OldAmber asked how to judge the following scenario.
Hypothetical Player A is playing Smeargle (BW: Undaunted 8/90, Call of Legends 21/95) and uses its "Portrait" Poke-Power against hypothetical Player B, whose only Supporter in hand is Engineer's Adjustments (HS: Unleashed 75/95). The relevant text from Portrait is below:
Now for the relevant text from the Supporter Engineer's Adjustments:
Third, we have the official ruling on the interaction of those cards:
Player A has no Energy cards in hand. The original question was how to resolve this. There are three plausible, solutions, though all have drawbacks.
Option 1
Player A states that s/he has no Energy in hand and thus cannot finish the full effect of portrait (which is now effectively the effect of Engineer's Adjustments) and Player B must accept this as face value and play proceeds.
Option 2
2) Player A states that s/he has no Energy in hand and thus cannot finish the full effect of portrait (which is now effectively the effect of Engineer's Adjustments) and must verify this to his/her opponent. To verify Player A must show his/her hand to Player B, proving that Player A has no Energy in hand.
Options 3
3) Player A states that s/he has no Energy in hand and thus cannot finish the full effect of portrait (which is now effectively the effect of Engineer's Adjustments) and a Judge is called over to verify Player A has no Energy in hand to the satisfaction of Player B.
Let us examine the consequences in more detail.
Option 1 is fast and simple, but creates an opportunity for cheating or an honest mistake, as well as clashing with the common practice that most similar effects would require you verify your claim.
Option 2 is still simple, only a little more complicated than the first option. While requiring specific circumstances, it may be so fast that it would require effort to measure the difference between resolving Option 1 and Option 2. Most of the time it will be noticeable, but it shouldn't take longer than the floor rules dictate for similar occurrences elsewhere. Option 2 does not present the same opportunity for cheating or an honest mistake.
Option 3, under ideal circumstances, matches the speed of Option 2, and also does not create an opportunity for cheating or and if the judge manages to miss an Energy card when examining the hand, and a competent judge simply should not fail to find an overlooked Energy card. The problem would be those "ideal circumstances". In Option 2, they were not common but didn't require extremely unlikely circumstances involving a third party. For Option 3, it does require unlikely circumstances for a third party: the Judge must already be at the table but not busy.
Realistically, calling on the Judge is going to take more time than either Option 1 or Option 2, except for extremes (The Judge is nearby and free while Player B does not read and/or process information as quickly as the Judge). If such extreme needs are apparent, the rules already allow for the Judge's involvement. This at least slows down the match, and creates two new potential issues: increased burden on Judge resources and the potential for a player to legally burn time.
I assert that the negative is non-existent with Option 2. Being forced to reveal your hand to your opponent is a risk inherent to using Portrait; that it will hit a Supporter whose effect is detrimental to you. It is up to you as the player to weigh the risks, and if you do not like them, you play to minimize such risks. It is not a reason to create new rulings precedent.
There are many Supporters that will result in shuffling away your hand, returning cards to your hand or deck from your discard pile, searching your deck for a card, or discarding cards. It is also possible for the effect of Portrait to 'do nothing', because your opponent has no Supporter cards in hand. There is also the ruling on Twins that seems relevant: blow is the card's text (less the generic Supporter reminder clause).
In this instance, there is only an issue because Player A has no Energy in hand, and it is quite likely because Player A was being shrew and mitigating the chance of discarding a desired Energy by playing it first. Indeed it is probably wisest for Player A out his or her hand before using Portrait, or at least to minimize it, due to the risk of discarding it or shuffling it away.
Even if I do something I shouldn't while debating a point, and allow the premise that the detrimental nature of Option 2 to Player A should indeed affect the ruling, let us really consider it. Is this a frequent occurrence? Unlikely: both cards were released under the last format. It is possible for the "metagame" to increase the frequency at which these two cards interact, but if we are worrying about what happens then let us worry about what happens.
The various potential stand-ins for Player A in the real world will not always have hands full of key, important cards. There is no detriment to them with key plays. If Player A completely plays out his/her hand, or has no significant cards in hand and follows up with another effect to discard or shuffle away the cards Player A has in hand. For this drawback to really matter, Player A basically had to be foolish or desperate. This is not why you make complicated that which should be simple and straightforward.
Still, Pokemon has a wide age range of players. Is this too complicated for them to handle? First I counter with "Is that the concern here, and if it is, is it the chief concern". I will once again deign to grant a premise that I do not hold to be true (I am not convinced is the chief concern). After all, despite trying to keep the game "accessible" for younger players, all complexity is not banished, and while there are more complicated games on the market, the Pokemon TCG is by now means simple.
Still, in general if something is too complicated for younger players, is it completely banished from the game? No, because then attacks would all have no effects, we'd have no Abilities, Items would be the only kind of Trainer, there would be no Special Energy, etc. Even if simplicity is important, it has a specific place in the hierarchy. If players cannot handle this kind of situation on there own, then that is what the Judges are there for; it is always an option to call a Judge over.
Still, let me go to the extreme: what if all Options I presented prove undesirable? Then there is a fourth option.
Option 4
Reverse the following ruling, even if it requires an erratum be issues for Smeargle:
In either case, I am starting to think this was a case of the Research & Development Team (or Translation Team if somehow the Japanese effect doesn't force the choice) simply missing this common concern. This kind of effect is not unique, but I believe it normally deals with what falls under "public knowledge" in the game, such as when you copy the effects of attacks on cards in play. It would be good to note this issue when designing future cards, to avoid a repeat, no matter what solution is truly best.
I believe I am going to have to start some PM or e-mail conversations, or perhaps another thread or threads, to resolve the rest of what has been so far discussed. Not to bog things down, but we have a situation where rulings I've found questionable (or would have had I realized they existed) for a long time are finally started to bear problematic fruit, and as such using those rules and rulings to explain this is just not working. I need to be challenging some of these older rulings. Some of the specifics of posts most definitely warrant it.
Still, I do thank you all for trying to explain this to me.
OldAmber asked how to judge the following scenario.
Hypothetical Player A is playing Smeargle (BW: Undaunted 8/90, Call of Legends 21/95) and uses its "Portrait" Poke-Power against hypothetical Player B, whose only Supporter in hand is Engineer's Adjustments (HS: Unleashed 75/95). The relevant text from Portrait is below:
Pokemon.com Card Database said:Once during your turn (before your attack), if Smeargle is your Active Pokémon, you may look at your opponent's hand. If you do, choose a Supporter card you find there and use the effect of that card as the effect of this power. This power can't be used if Smeargle is affected by a Special Condition.
Now for the relevant text from the Supporter Engineer's Adjustments:
Pokemon.Com Card Database said:Discard an Energy card from your hand. Then. draw 4 cards.
Third, we have the official ruling on the interaction of those cards:
Compedium BW said:Q. If I don't discard an energy, can I play "Engineer's Adjustments"?
A. No. You must be able to discard an energy to play the card. (HS:Unleashed FAQ; May 13, 2010 PUI Rules Team)
Player A has no Energy cards in hand. The original question was how to resolve this. There are three plausible, solutions, though all have drawbacks.
Option 1
Player A states that s/he has no Energy in hand and thus cannot finish the full effect of portrait (which is now effectively the effect of Engineer's Adjustments) and Player B must accept this as face value and play proceeds.
Option 2
2) Player A states that s/he has no Energy in hand and thus cannot finish the full effect of portrait (which is now effectively the effect of Engineer's Adjustments) and must verify this to his/her opponent. To verify Player A must show his/her hand to Player B, proving that Player A has no Energy in hand.
Options 3
3) Player A states that s/he has no Energy in hand and thus cannot finish the full effect of portrait (which is now effectively the effect of Engineer's Adjustments) and a Judge is called over to verify Player A has no Energy in hand to the satisfaction of Player B.
Let us examine the consequences in more detail.
Option 1 is fast and simple, but creates an opportunity for cheating or an honest mistake, as well as clashing with the common practice that most similar effects would require you verify your claim.
Option 2 is still simple, only a little more complicated than the first option. While requiring specific circumstances, it may be so fast that it would require effort to measure the difference between resolving Option 1 and Option 2. Most of the time it will be noticeable, but it shouldn't take longer than the floor rules dictate for similar occurrences elsewhere. Option 2 does not present the same opportunity for cheating or an honest mistake.
Option 3, under ideal circumstances, matches the speed of Option 2, and also does not create an opportunity for cheating or and if the judge manages to miss an Energy card when examining the hand, and a competent judge simply should not fail to find an overlooked Energy card. The problem would be those "ideal circumstances". In Option 2, they were not common but didn't require extremely unlikely circumstances involving a third party. For Option 3, it does require unlikely circumstances for a third party: the Judge must already be at the table but not busy.
Realistically, calling on the Judge is going to take more time than either Option 1 or Option 2, except for extremes (The Judge is nearby and free while Player B does not read and/or process information as quickly as the Judge). If such extreme needs are apparent, the rules already allow for the Judge's involvement. This at least slows down the match, and creates two new potential issues: increased burden on Judge resources and the potential for a player to legally burn time.
I assert that the negative is non-existent with Option 2. Being forced to reveal your hand to your opponent is a risk inherent to using Portrait; that it will hit a Supporter whose effect is detrimental to you. It is up to you as the player to weigh the risks, and if you do not like them, you play to minimize such risks. It is not a reason to create new rulings precedent.
There are many Supporters that will result in shuffling away your hand, returning cards to your hand or deck from your discard pile, searching your deck for a card, or discarding cards. It is also possible for the effect of Portrait to 'do nothing', because your opponent has no Supporter cards in hand. There is also the ruling on Twins that seems relevant: blow is the card's text (less the generic Supporter reminder clause).
as well as the text (again less the generic Supporter clause) of Aaron's Collection as it is referenced in the rulingpokemon.com Card Database said:You may use this card only if you have more Prize cards left than your opponent. Search your deck for any 2 cards and put them into your hand. Shuffle your deck afterward.
and the ruling itselfpokemon.com Card Database said:Search your discard pile for up to 2 in any combination of Pokémon SP and basic Energy cards, show them to your opponent, and put them into your hand.
Compendium BW said:Q. When using Smeargle's "Portrait" Poke-POWER, can I choose a Supporter that will have no effect?
A. You cannot pick a supporter you couldn't normally use; for example you can't choose "Twins" unless you are behind on prizes at that time, nor Aaron's Collection if you don't have anything in your Discard Pile. You would have to choose a different Supporter if one is available. (Dec 9, 2010 PUI Rules Team)
In this instance, there is only an issue because Player A has no Energy in hand, and it is quite likely because Player A was being shrew and mitigating the chance of discarding a desired Energy by playing it first. Indeed it is probably wisest for Player A out his or her hand before using Portrait, or at least to minimize it, due to the risk of discarding it or shuffling it away.
Even if I do something I shouldn't while debating a point, and allow the premise that the detrimental nature of Option 2 to Player A should indeed affect the ruling, let us really consider it. Is this a frequent occurrence? Unlikely: both cards were released under the last format. It is possible for the "metagame" to increase the frequency at which these two cards interact, but if we are worrying about what happens then let us worry about what happens.
The various potential stand-ins for Player A in the real world will not always have hands full of key, important cards. There is no detriment to them with key plays. If Player A completely plays out his/her hand, or has no significant cards in hand and follows up with another effect to discard or shuffle away the cards Player A has in hand. For this drawback to really matter, Player A basically had to be foolish or desperate. This is not why you make complicated that which should be simple and straightforward.
Still, Pokemon has a wide age range of players. Is this too complicated for them to handle? First I counter with "Is that the concern here, and if it is, is it the chief concern". I will once again deign to grant a premise that I do not hold to be true (I am not convinced is the chief concern). After all, despite trying to keep the game "accessible" for younger players, all complexity is not banished, and while there are more complicated games on the market, the Pokemon TCG is by now means simple.
Still, in general if something is too complicated for younger players, is it completely banished from the game? No, because then attacks would all have no effects, we'd have no Abilities, Items would be the only kind of Trainer, there would be no Special Energy, etc. Even if simplicity is important, it has a specific place in the hierarchy. If players cannot handle this kind of situation on there own, then that is what the Judges are there for; it is always an option to call a Judge over.
Still, let me go to the extreme: what if all Options I presented prove undesirable? Then there is a fourth option.
Option 4
Reverse the following ruling, even if it requires an erratum be issues for Smeargle:
Given the text of Smeargle, I believe an erratum to alter "...choose a Supporter you find there..." to "you may choose a Supporter you find there".Compendium BW said:Q. When I use Smeargle's "Portrait" Poke-POWER to look at my opponent's hand, can I terminate the power's effect without choosing a Supporter card?
A. No, you cannot. You must choose a Supporter card when you use the effect if the opponent has one in their hand. (HS:Undaunted FAQ; Sep 9, 2010 PUI Rules Team)
In either case, I am starting to think this was a case of the Research & Development Team (or Translation Team if somehow the Japanese effect doesn't force the choice) simply missing this common concern. This kind of effect is not unique, but I believe it normally deals with what falls under "public knowledge" in the game, such as when you copy the effects of attacks on cards in play. It would be good to note this issue when designing future cards, to avoid a repeat, no matter what solution is truly best.
I believe I am going to have to start some PM or e-mail conversations, or perhaps another thread or threads, to resolve the rest of what has been so far discussed. Not to bog things down, but we have a situation where rulings I've found questionable (or would have had I realized they existed) for a long time are finally started to bear problematic fruit, and as such using those rules and rulings to explain this is just not working. I need to be challenging some of these older rulings. Some of the specifics of posts most definitely warrant it.
Still, I do thank you all for trying to explain this to me.