Two rulings questions

Discussion in 'Cards: Strategy and Rulings Discussion' started by Qzin, Apr 12, 2013.

  1. Qzin

    Qzin New Member

    I need an advice about how to judge one thing and how to rule about another:

    Example number 1:

    Player A has healthy pokemon without energies on a field and another with damages on it. He tries to play a Max Potion but wants to target healthy pokemon. As a judge I have to stop him there and say it's not legal target for that card as it would have no effect.

    He wishes to take it back to his hand and not play it at all. Is he allowed to do so, or does he have to heal the damaged pokemon and discard energies from it? Assuming his opponent doesn't agree on taking max potion back.

    (It could happen because a player forgot to move energies and tries to take Max Potion back or because he wanted to lose cards before playing Bianca but doesn't know meta ruling about not playing items for no effect)

    Example number 2:

    We have a player that plays some cards without declaring them. He recently simply played Full Art Corless and shuffled his hand into his deck. To me it looked like he played Full Art N as he plays both those cards in his deck, but because i don't want to make a misplay of shuffling my hand into my deck and lose a game I asked him what card he just played.

    That's me being safe. However it looked like he did that on purpose to bait opponent (in that case me) into doing that and losing a game. I warned him that he should probably declare what he's playing as in bad lighting that we have there those 2 cards can be confused with each other.

    If he ever does that again and his opponent takes his bait what should I do?
    Obviously his opponent will get a game loss penalty but should I also punish the player that baits this way? If so in what manner? It wouldn't be as he wasn't warned before about it.
  2. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

    Moving to a discussion forum.
    There are both judgement questions.
  3. psychup2034

    psychup2034 New Member

    Pokepop, while I agree that both are judgment questions, I believe that the rules team should make a general ruling for the first question. For example, in the compendium, there is a general ruling for what happens when an attack is declared:
    • Once you have declared an attack, you cannot leave the attack step without your opponent's permission. If you declare an "illegal" attack (e.g., you don't have the proper energy required to perform the attack), you may ask your opponent's permission to back out of the attack step. If he or she says "yes", you can go back and take any actions that you could have taken prior to the attack step. If he or she says "no", you may either select an attack that is legal or you may pass. (Mar 14, 2007 POP Announcement, POP Professor Forums; Mar 15, 2007 PUI Rules Team)
    It wouldn't be a stretch for you to make a general ruling for what happens when a trainer card is declared or an energy attachment is declared, but the target is invalid. This could avoid judging inconsistencies in the future, and make things more transparent.
  4. vaporeon

    vaporeon Moderator

    I thought Max Potion was one of those cards that always had a target. You can still remove 0 damage as all damage does not have a requirement of x damage to remove, just remove it. You should always be able to meet the requirement, right? Same for cards like professor juniper and cards that have a up to requirement tool scrapper.
  5. psychup2034

    psychup2034 New Member

    Both things you said are completely incorrect. You're not just a regular member here. As a moderator (in a position of authority) on a Pokemon forum, it would be wise to actually check the Compendium and rulings forum before weighing in on rulings questions... :nonono:
  6. FincastlePokemon2

    FincastlePokemon2 New Member

    I agree with what seems to be your initial instinct. The card is played. A "take-back" is at his opponent's discretion. If they say no, then A has to do what the card says - targeting a "legal" Pokemon. That means healing the Pokemon which has damage and discarding its energies. In reality, this is a mis-play, not a rules violation. I would not assess a penalty.

    However, if Player A has no damaged Pokemon, you are in a different situation. The "take-back" is automatic. (You are unwinding an illegal play.) And you would assess a "Game Play Minor" penalty.
  7. Otaku

    Otaku Active Member

    Actually, vaporeon said three things:

    1) Because of the "up to" wording, Max Potion should always have a target. This is incorrect, as it has been ruled otherwise. I will address the angle vaporeon was approaching it from after naming the other two points vaporeon was addressing.

    2) That you can discard a hand of "zero" cards for the purpose of Professor Juniper. A better example would be that you shuffle a hand of "zero cards" into your deck for an effect like N. At least that is how it would work based on past rulings; I didn't see an entry for N itself in the compendium, and it is a bit tricky to search for in Ask The Masters.

    3) Also based on older rulings, that "up to" includes zero. I confess I am having a hard time finding an explicit ruling, and that this may be an error on my part.

    I believe that the Max Potion ruling is justified because "all" doesn't automatically equate to "up to", and perhaps more importantly, I believe that the "must have an effect" requirement trumps it. If I only have Colress in my hand and neither player has any Benched Pokémon, I could play it because I am still shuffling my deck; it had an effect. Even if I had no cards left in my deck, because the deck is considered a "location" and not just the cards within it (similar to one's hand), you can "shuffle" a hand of zero cards into an empty deck and it still counts as an action.

    Damage does not always exist, so unless a contrary ruling comes from higher up (not the case here), healing "all damage" wouldn't include "zero damage" as the game doesn't consider the state of being damaged to be perpetual and that Pokémon are "always damaged" and those with full HP are just at "zero damage".

    All members should check the Compendium and rulings forum before weighing in. Sometimes, mistakes will still happen. As for being a moderator, a moderator is not a Professor or someone else that "should" have good knowledge of the game. It is a bonus, but how much of a requirement should it be? A moderator "moderates"; their knowledge needs to be about the board rules and how to enforce them. A moderator not knowing the rules, failing to enforce them, or actively violating them is a serious concern. Getting something wrong about the hobby for which a message board they moderate on is focused is mostly just an embarrassment for them.
  8. psychup2034

    psychup2034 New Member

    You have a notorious habit of playing semantic games to counter other people's arguments (instead of writing with substance). "Same for cards like professor juniper and cards that have a up to requirement tool scrapper" was one sentence. I defined it as one statement, and this statement is factually incorrect.
  9. Qzin

    Qzin New Member

    Guys I'm really glad we ARE having a discussion and my first instinct about Max Potion case was exactly the same as Psych Ups.

    But what about the other player that plays Colress FA but doesn't say what card he just played and shuffles his hand into his deck? It so happened that light was reflecting of his sleeve that I couldn't see what he played (N or Corless) and as a safe played i simply asked, but what would you do if he made that move again? He already's been warned by me about that behaviour.

    Should it end with game loss penalty for both of those players? That would probably be the ruling I'd go for.
  10. King Piplup

    King Piplup New Member

    Not in my view. If the player isn't paying enough attention to ask what their opponent is doing (N and Colress FA's really don't look similar at all in my view, the Colress has way too much blue to make that case); it's definitely not the Colress player's fault. Warning for not being explicitly clear in his actions, but nowhere near a DGL.
  11. ShadowCard

    ShadowCard New Member

    I agree with FincastlePokemon2 on the result of the action.

    I agree with psychup2034 that the first question should go back to the Rules Team.

    For the second question, the lack of shuffle supporters for so long in the format used to make me think an N was being played when in fact a Colress was played. This question is a judge question and cannot be answered without more information. Personally, when a player plays a card that could lead you to break the game state (like shuffling you hand into your deck) and you don't hear what that card is, it is best to get clarification first. If the Colress player played Colress and gave you an expected look, as if to get you to follow through on something, then there is a problem.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2013
  12. ShuckleLVX

    ShuckleLVX New Member

    Whoa. All we're hearing is that Colress-player Shuffled his hand into his deck, you didn't see the card, and his opponent didn't do anything. How did this get to DGL?
  13. Qzin

    Qzin New Member

    The point is I played against him in that situation and I know how light reflected of his sleeve. All I was able to see is that it's a full art and he runs both Colress and Ns as full arts. I think all players should declare what card are they playing in case it might be unclear.

    As I said it was an action that could've been used as a bait to get a free victory. That's somewhat unfair to younger players.

    At least we all agree on ruling to question#1


    All I'm asking is how would you punish baiting your opponent into shuffling his or her hand into his deck. Or you wouldn't because you think it's their fault that they didn't ask what is the card that they cannot see? If that's the case I'll just make people more aware about it and ask them to watch out and ask everytime their opponent plays a card.
  14. King Piplup

    King Piplup New Member

    It's both players' responsibly to maintain the gamestate. That means paying close attention to what your opponent is doing. If for some reason you can't see a card clearly (I still struggle to see how Colress and N FA could be confused, but that doesn't really matter), that means clarifying with your opponent. I could see a warning (maybe a Prize Penalty at a Tier 2 event after repeat offenses) for the Colress player for not being explicitly clear, but a Double Loss is not a suitable penalty.
  15. ShadowCard

    ShadowCard New Member

    Your situation is too general. It requires more information to give you any kind of suggestion.

    Did he put the Colress on the table and then shuffle like normal? If so, how is that baiting? Did he give you an expected look? If so, that is missing from your description. Did you know he had an N in hand (for example, because of a Random Receiver) and then play Colress right after? If so, did the player habitually not name his plays throughout the game or was not naming Colress a change in habit?

    Communication is a two-way street. Your description alone makes it sound like you did not ask for clarification. Had he said "Colress" but you did not hear him very well, why wouldn't you ask for clarification?
  16. Qzin

    Qzin New Member

    I did ask for clarification ;). That's the only reason I did NOT shuffle my hand into my deck. He played a card straight to discard pile that was far from me as the tables we play on are long and the light was reflecting out of card only showing it's FA supporter.

    He did NOT say anything at all. The look would be ambigious he didn't rly pay any attention to what am I doing until I asked him what card had he just played.

    I think I agree with your opinion about that it's both players responsibility to mantain a gamestate so therefor I'm gonna make players more alert to that kind of behavior. I did not give him any official warning simply told him to declare verbally what card is he playing in the future.
  17. Pikamaster

    Pikamaster New Member

    Personally, I don't see how this is "baiting". He played a card, he shuffled his hand. Should he have said something? Yes. But to me, that doesn't seem like baiting. If he made some intonation that you should be shuffling your hand in, too, that would be misleading conduct and would result in a penalty for the player trying to feed misinformation. But simply playing a card and following the instructions on that card, no. If you're unsure of what you should do, then just ask, as you did.

    I'd also like to point out that there is a rule that gives any player trying to intentionally mislead their opponent in any way a very harsh penalty (I believe it's a prize penalty, at the least, although I'm not sure).
  18. Qzin

    Qzin New Member

    Okay but since he's been told to declare what card is he playing, should I consider his NEXT TIME as deliberately baiting?

    That was my main concern as nothing rly happened that first time because i was cautious. But how about next time? If he doesn't say anything despite me asking him to do so in the same case?
  19. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

    If he did nothing wrong, he did nothing wrong.
    You don't get to make it wrong just because you want to.
  20. Qzin

    Qzin New Member

    I am asking about deliberate violating something that was told to him. I agree that he could have not known how his action could've been seen by other players but if despite of being asked to declare what card he is using he does not do that can that be a reason to give any penalty? It's not like he wasn't asked to do that before.

    As I said, I found it only confusing, but there was no penalty given and my only question was what to do if he continues to do so in the future despite being asked to verbally declare using of each card.

Share This Page