Smeargle force a look at opponent's hand?

[Otaku]

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:

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:

Discard an Energy card from your hand. Then. draw 4 cards.

Third, we have the official ruling on the interaction of those cards:

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).

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.

as well as the text (again less the generic Supporter clause) of Aaron's Collection as it is referenced in the ruling

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.

and the ruling itself

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:

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)

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".

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.

 

[AyameHikaru]

^Pretty much what I've been doing is Option 5. Option 1 AND 3. Basically, Player A declares no energy. Player B can take that at face value or not. If they suspect Player A has an energy, they can call over a Judge to verify. Both players know this, so Player A isn't likely to bluff. It works well, and almost the only time a judge is called is during To Cuts.

I don't see why adding another risk to Portrait will help. There are already risks involved. Juniper & Judge are the worst things to find, and the first at least is extremely popular. I've seen a player have to discard THREE of their main attackers turn 2 because the only Supporter they found was a Juniper. Smeargle is a risk as is. Why make it even less appealing now that it's finally somewhat playable again?

 

[Otaku]

^Pretty much what I've been doing is Option 5. Option 1 AND 3. Basically, Player A declares no energy. Player B can take that at face value or not. If they suspect Player A has an energy, they can call over a Judge to verify. Both players know this, so Player A isn't likely to bluff. It works well, and almost the only time a judge is called is during To Cuts.

Option 5 does not exist. It is really Option 3, just with the normal procedural rules in effect. Whenever your opponent shuffles, you have the option to shuffle their deck. It isn't mandatory; you may let your opponent shuffle it and accept the deck as is at that point.

Why make it even less appealing now that it's finally somewhat playable again?

Why is that the determining factor of the ruling?

Not buying that.

"Wait, how come Card X can do this, but not Card Y?"
"Card X isn't as powerful as Card Y, so we decided that it would interact with the other cards differently."
"So what if Card X ends up becoming more powerful than Card Y?"
"We'll have to reverse the ruling!"

We are concerned about making good rulings, not strengthening or weakening cards, and the latter should not be relevant.

This is not my TCG. I am not in charge. Those that are in charge bear the rights and responsibilities of maintaining the game and pleasing the customer base, the fans. I say this because as obvious as it is, it is also foundational.

Even if it ruins a particular card or cards, we need rules that the player base can comprehend and are impartial and consistent. Notice how I phrased that: a "fair" rule that can't be understood does us no good. How can you prove it is "fair" if you can't understand it?

Impartial and consistent are bedfellows; partial rules aren't really consistent and inconsistent rules aren't really impartial, but they are not quite the same thing. There are situations where treating two things as being the same is not correct, because those two things are not similar.

Most cards have reminder text for basic procedures to resolve common issues with an effect. The fundamental rules are such that one should always assume when searching one's entire deck for a card, that one should shuffle the deck afterwards, unless explicitly told something otherwise. When you use an effect that allows you to (for example) search your deck for a card, unless the target is completely unrestricted (any card in the target deck), then you must reveal the card to demonstrate to your opponent you selected a legal target.

Unfortunately, sometimes card text is already long, and reminder text is either intentionally or accidentally omitted, yet these ideas even transcend Pokemon. When the (failed) Mega Man TCG was released, I encountered Decipher players who were shocked when I asked to see the results of their (restricted) card search. It was not specified on the text, and after receiving rulings from Decipher it was because it was considered obvious: the alternative is forcing the judge to police matches so that any search that isn't for simply "a card or card(s)" has to have a judge to ensure a player doesn't cheat and grab an illegal target.

Portrait is already quite a wordy effect, and it seems odd to demand that they include a clause for this scenario. We look at basic rules and patterns of the game, and what do we see? In similar circumstances to the problem scenario (Portrait hits Engineer's Adjustments and Portrait user has no Energy in hand), the simple solution is to require a player show his or her hand to the opposing player to verify.

If we start using these rules to "level the playing field", the game is dead. Consider what that would do to the game.

 

[OldAmber]

I am starting to understand the unequaled wisdom of PokePop in reply to my question.

My personal thought is that Pokemon is a game played between family and friends that has a competitive element. It has to be able to be played at a kitchen table. As such, a judge should not be part of the playing of the game unless a question regarding game-play occurs in a competition. Therefore, only two options exist: (1) take the opponent's word -or- (2) show your hand.

My quandary was this: Private knowledge is private knowledge. (1) Works because, just as we allow searches to fail in the deck, we allow searches to fail in the hand. On the other hand: There is inherent risk in playing any Power/Body/Ability/Attack. (2) Works because just as we have to prove things on one card, we can prove them on another.

If I know that my opponent has the ability to Portrait I can see trying to keep a Juniper or Engineer's Adjustment in my hand (especially if I run a deck out list like Durant). In the case of the Engineer's Adjustment, making sure they draw those cards is important - and gives them reason to pretend they have no energy.

For all of these reasons, I think that (2) works the best at both the kitchen table and Top Cuts. Your mileage may vary.

Until then, the only way to judge this without a ruling, I think, is to wait till someone complains and raises their hand for a judge then verify the card - but this can allow a built-in stall tactic in which case I would be in the position of determining if they crossed the line on too many calls for a judge.

 

[tutti]

You can't fail a "hand search". The reason you can fail deck searches isn't that it's private information, it's that it's unknown information.

Besides, a kitchen table game doesn't have to follow these rules. When playing at home with friends or family, you can add, change or remove rules as you see fit. So, even if the rules in this situation call for a judge to be called, a kitchen table game can resolve it differently. Essentially, any event where the need for a judge will be enforced, there will be a judge. So we don't really need to concern ourselves much with what people do at their kitchen tables

 

[OldAmber]

Thinking about it, tutti is right in the difference between unknown and private, but even though we all have tournaments where we state different rules (like the "I choose you" version at the Professor's Cup last year for instance) I beg to differ about changing the rules as we see fit - I think the game is the game. The rules are printed in the theme decks for a reason.

In any case (2) still works - but only in our perfect world where we have a ruling that tells us so. Until then we have to pretty much tell the players "work it out the best you can and call the judge if you can't" and I was hoping for a more elegant solution than that.

 

[Otaku]

You can't fail a "hand search". The reason you can fail deck searches isn't that it's private information, it's that it's unknown information.

Besides, a kitchen table game doesn't have to follow these rules. When playing at home with friends or family, you can add, change or remove rules as you see fit. So, even if the rules in this situation call for a judge to be called, a kitchen table game can resolve it differently. Essentially, any event where the need for a judge will be enforced, there will be a judge. So we don't really need to concern ourselves much with what people do at their kitchen tables

Stepping back from the discussion at hand, I wish to address a small matter. I apologize if this does not appear to be the correct venue for it.

While I agree that describing the deck as private information is misleading (at least when that term is being ascribed to the contents of one's own hand), labeling it unknown is not really an accurate description either. Barring some special rules tournaments, you know what is in your overall deck, and within a few cards a skilled player should be able to quickly deduce the contents of his/her own deck less Prizes.

I do not wish for this to appear as "nit-picking", but consider the confusion the terminology has brought to this discussion. Perhaps a more accurate description, such as "the deck is in a state of flux" is worth considering.

 

[tutti]

We're back to The Game again, now. (I really wish they'd picked a different name for that)

The Game doesn't know what's in your deck. Since all decisions on what you can or can't do relies on what The Game knows, labeling it "unknown", while not technically correct, is a useful shorthand.

Besides, you may know what's generally in your deck, but you can't usually know exactly what's in your deck - and most of these effects would require you to.

 

[Otaku]

We're back to The Game again, now. (I really wish they'd picked a different name for that)

The Game doesn't know what's in your deck. Since all decisions on what you can or can't do relies on what The Game knows, labeling it "unknown", while not technically correct, is a useful shorthand.

Besides, you may know what's generally in your deck, but you can't usually know exactly what's in your deck - and most of these effects would require you to.

Smeargle does not need to know what is in your deck, nor does Engineer's Adjustments. You'll need to be more specific, especially when your basic premise has already been challenged (seriously, just figuring out how best to do it and we'll probably see a new thread about that).:lol:

 

[tutti]

Knowing the exact contents of your deck was regarding the idea of deck contents being unknown, which is a side issue about terminology. We probably should abandon that line of thought as well, at least in this thread.

As for Smeargle and Engineer's Adjustments, I think it generally comes down to the reveal of your hand is not a printed effect of either card. Having to prove that you have no Energy when you hit an EA is a reasonable conclusion, but having to prove it by revealing your entire hand isn't, as long as there is another way to prove it, in this case by calling a judge.

If I've missed a challenged premise apart from that, I've genuinely missed it - mind pointing it out?

 

[Otaku]

I was referencing the side issues that have been brought (in a manner I found questionable) to justify the "Judge must look" side of the debate, generally the search cards you are allowed to use knowing you will "fail", and that you don't have to "prove" failed. I am hoping to address those soon, but I want to avoid my earlier mishaps by having a properly worded statement to open with.

You have not demonstrated that revealing your entire hand is unreasonable to my satisfaction. This isn't me trying to be rude, I just want to be clear; obviously we view "reasonable" rather differently, since I consider having to call a judge over for resolving a card effect quite unreasonable. No, Smeargle does not explicitly state this effect, but the procedure has been implicit in Pokemon for quite some time: if not revealing the contents of your hand, search, etc. would allow you to cheat, you have to reveal it.

Requiring explicit text for an occurrence like this maybe be required of the future, but there is a cost to that. If there is plenty of room on a card, go ahead and include the text. Portrait is already fairly wordy, and if we require the card itself contain what should be procedural rulings we are probably ensuring no similar effects can be printed in the future. By this line of reasoning, Smeargle should have lines referencing what to do if the player cannot use any of the Supporters in an opponent's hand. Personally, I would have just designed Smeargle to requirement text to use a Supporter, assuming that is possible, or allowed the player the option of selecting a Supporter after seeing the opponent's hand.

Showing your hand, while grossly inconvenient for the Smeargle player, is still "reasonable", as it is the most efficient way to resolve the issue, demanding less time, effort, and people than calling over a judge, and avoiding trust/cheating issues as simply being forced to take your opponent's word for it.

 

[tutti]

Actually, as far as I know revealing cards has never been implicit in Pokémon TCG - any effect that makes you search your deck or discard pile for a specific card explicitly asks you to show it to your opponent. Any effect that would require you or your opponent to know otherwise private information, specifically calls for that information to be revealed. Except this one. Without yet having an official ruling on this, I believe the best way to handle this issue is to consider the rule proven by the exception. (link because that phrase is very often misused)

 

[Otaku]

Here is my concern:

It is a common sight on many cards to have text that reinforce a commonly understood principal. It has also been ruled that not every card has room for reminder text on what is considered obvious.

Q. Dark Dragonite's Pokémon Power does not have the "you cannot use this Power if your bench is already full" text like most other Bench-building powers and attacks do. Does this mean that by using Dark Dragonite you can bypass the normal five-Pokémon limit to your bench?
A. C'mon. That's silly. There isn't room to put the reminder text on every single card. The rule is the bench can only have 5 max (EVER). (April 27, 2000 WotC Chat Q43)

Meta-Rulings

Meta-Rulings are based on the underlying rules of the Game which cannot be bypassed by a card or card effect. All Meta-Rulings in the Compedium BW have been reviewed and approved by the TPCi Rules Team (top)

Meta-Rulings

• Effects on the Attacking Pokemon cannot add to damage done to a Benched Pokemon. Examples: PlusPower, Darkness Energy (special), and Strength Charm. (Jan 31, 2008 PUI Rules Team)

In this Ask The Masters thread, this Meta-Ruling was ignored. The question if Mew Prime is Active and Swanna (with Featherdance) and Landorus are in the Lost Zone, can Mew Prime use Featherdance, then assuming nothing has removed the effect of Featherdance from Mew Prime, use Gaia Hammer from Landorus, with not only the damage to the Defending Pokemon increased, but all Bench damage as well.

So even though we have an answer in Ask The Masters, I was not convinced by the reasons given, and may appeal it.

An exception proving the rule has not been sufficiently demonstrated, and indeed ignores the possibility of simple mistakes. Dark Dragonite lacked the text preventing it from exceeding rules on maximum Bench capacity due to space concerns. It is a meta rule that effects on the attacking Pokemon cannot increase Bench damage. Just because a card lacks the text does not make it otherwise.

Smeargle lacks the text to clarify how to respond to a single problematic card interaction. Even if we had several cards which presented similar scenarios, how do you prove what is rulings precedent and what was a lack of foresight? We have five rulings for Portrait already; some fall into similar areas of text interpretation.

Portrait does not allow you to decline selecting a Supporter, or one you wouldn't normally meet the requirements to use. The text says nothing about requirements to use the card or capacity to perform the effect, and yet you cannot select something like Twins unless you meet the requirements to actually play the card. The same phrasing that forces a player to select a Supporter for Portrait does not constrain a player to make a choice for Pokemon Communication.

 

[cabd]

In this Ask The Masters thread, this Meta-Ruling was ignored. The question if Mew Prime is Active and Swanna (with Featherdance) and Landorus are in the Lost Zone, can Mew Prime use Featherdance, then assuming nothing has removed the effect of Featherdance from Mew Prime, use Gaia Hammer from Landorus, with not only the damage to the Defending Pokemon increased, but all Bench damage as well.

So even though we have an answer in Ask The Masters, I was not convinced by the reasons given, and may appeal it.

While I suppose you COULD appeal it; it was made clear that this particular ruling came straight from Japan, so I doubt appealing it will have any effect. In fact, as I understand it, the rules team ruled that it would not, then Japan decided it would all of a sudden. So we go by what they say.

 

[Otaku]

I saw no mention of Japan for either the Featherdance or he Portrait ruling. Can you supply a link?

 

[PokePop]

I saw no mention of Japan for either the Featherdance or he Portrait ruling. Can you supply a link?

What he says is accurate.

 

[Otaku]

Thank you PokePop.

This may save us both some time and effort; no sense bothering you for answers you don't have that may be as simple as with the Japanese wording/rules, there is no apparent conflict. >.>

 

[tutti]

Here is my concern:

It is a common sight on many cards to have text that reinforce a commonly understood principal. It has also been ruled that not every card has room for reminder text on what is considered obvious.

<snipped the long text>

Hm... you make a convincing argument. I don't have any further objections then

 

[Roarkiller]

Just a thought: Wouldn't this fall under the same ruling of last season's use of Roast Reveal to bait Power Spray?

Roast Reveal cannot be used without an energy in hand, yet it can be ACTIVATED and Power Spray CAN be used if it was activated. The ruling then was that because Roast Reveal should not have been able to be activated, it was deemed as dubious play, with a DQ penalty.

A similar, but less obvious, case of dubious play was in Worlds when a player put aside a copy of Dusknoir claimed to be used a reference, even though his deck did not run dusknoir. It was argued that he used it to make the opponent assume he ran dusknoir, and so played as such (intimidating play, if you will). It was deemed as dubious play, and DQed.

For this example, in the opposite manner of the first example, the player DOES have an energy card in hand, and therefore CAN use Engineer, and so MUST use it. Declaring that he cannot use it (when he could) would be a similar cheat to activating Roast Reveal when he cannot.

So if I were a Judge, I would rule it as gamemanship/cheating, and hence a game loss penalty at the minimum, if not outright DQ.

And unless I'm mistaken, didn't we already have a thread for this before?

 

[OldAmber]

I referenced the Roast Reveal / Power Spray in my original post, which was at least proving a positive - you could show the energy. My question was about proving the negative which would require a judge or to show the hand.

The ruling on this (I also posted the summary of these arguments in rules) was that the judge had to be called - mainly because the ruling for EA came down from Japan, but guidance for implementation did not. I will say that I agree with you that if I get called over and there is an energy I would rule it as a dubious play.

I searched for a thread on this before I posted and I never found one shy of the ruling I referenced in the compendium.