Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

No ruling on Copycat? (UPDATE: talk of translation error in Rowan)

ninetales1234

ninetales1234

<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
It is possible that I overlooked something, but I do not see any rulings specifically under "Copycat" in the Compendium, at least not in regard to concept of a hand whose size is zero.

A player with zero cards in her hand is able to play Copycat. The player always has a hand, even if that hand is zero. That is how I understand it. Here is the text I have to back me up:

Copycat on the other hand just says "shuffle your hand into your deck". A hand of zero cards is a legal hand, so you can play it even if you have no cards in your hand. You still shuffle, even if you have no cardsin your hand.

The above is not from the Compendium but is actually a response from an ATM thread. One would think that this should be placed in the Compendium, given a previous ruling on Imposter Oak's Revenge (that is written in the Compendium). Am I overlooking something or have I found a contradiction:confused:?

Q. If my opponent has no hand and I play Imposter Oak's Revenge, do they still shuffle their deck?
A. If it says to shuffle cards into the deck, then NO SHUFFLING if no cards are shuffled in. If it states, Shuffle afterwards (like after using a Computer Search) then DO SHUFFLE!!! (Nov 30, 2000 WotC Chat, Q19)

Imposter Oak's Revenge: Discard a card from your hand in order to play this card. Your opponent shuffles his or her hand into his or her deck, then draws 4 cards.

Copycat: Shuffle your hand into your deck. Then, count the number of cards in your opponent's hand and draw that many cards.

Shouldn't they both work the same way? If a player's hand of zero is shuffled into her deck, she still gets to shuffle the zero cards from her hand into her deck, right?
It appears that the question in the above ruling contains a presupposition that is incorrect (the opponent has no hand).
--------------------------

I judged a tournament yesterday and made an incorrect ruling. A player played Quick Ball.

Reveal cards from your deck until you reveal a Pokemon. Show that Pokemon to your opponent and put it into your hand. Shuffle the other revealed cards back into your deck. (If you don't reveal a Pokemon, shuffle all the revealed cards back into your deck.)

The first card he revealed was a Pokemon. Then I reminded him to shuffle his deck. The player did not object.

The way I see it, the "other revealed cards" equal zero. He revealed zero cards, therefore he should shuffle zero cards back into his deck.

I do not fully comprehend the ruling on Quick Ball. Shouldn't it be consistent with the use of Copycat?

Q. If I use Quick Ball and the very first card revealed is a Pokemon, do I still have to shuffle my deck?
A. If the first revealed card is a Pokemon then the deck is not shuffled as there are no "other revealed cards" to shuffle back in. (Oct 25, 2007 PUI Rules Team)

And, if I can throw another ruling into the mix:

Q. If a card say to shuffle your deck after doing something like putting cards back in your deck but you do did not put any cards in your deck do you still shuffle? Like playing gambler with no cards in your hand?
A. Yes, you would. (August 17, 2000 WotC Chat Q91)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
ninetales1234 said:
Q. If my opponent has no hand and I play Imposter Oak's Revenge, do they still shuffle their deck?
A. If it says to shuffle cards into the deck, then NO SHUFFLING if no cards are shuffled in. If it states, Shuffle afterwards (like after using a Computer Search) then DO SHUFFLE!!! (Nov 30, 2000 WotC Chat, Q19)

Imposter Oak's Revenge: Discard a card from your hand in order to play this card. Your opponent shuffles his or her hand into his or her deck, then draws 4 cards.

Copycat: Shuffle your hand into your deck. Then, count the number of cards in your opponent's hand and draw that many cards.

Shouldn't they both work the same way? If a player's hand of zero is shuffled into her deck, she still gets to shuffle the zero cards from her hand into her deck, right?
It appears that the question in the above ruling contains a presupposition that is incorrect (the opponent has no hand).
Click to expand...

That's an old WotC ruling. It's been superceded.

ninetales1234 said:
The way I see it, the "other revealed cards" equal zero. He revealed zero cards, therefore he should shuffle zero cards back into his deck.

I do not fully comprehend the ruling on Quick Ball. Shouldn't it be consistent with the use of Copycat?
Click to expand...

No. The thing that's confusing you with Copycat is that it refers specifically to a player's "hand". A player is always considered to have a hand, even if it has zero cards in it. So if something says "shuffle your hand into your deck", you always shuffle, because there's always a hand to shuffle in.

Quick Ball refers to revealed cards. If there are no revealed cards, there's nothing to shuffle, so you don't.
 
There is a ruling. You even quoted it.

Q. If a card say to shuffle your deck after doing something like putting cards back in your deck but you do did not put any cards in your deck do you still shuffle? Like playing gambler with no cards in your hand?
A. Yes, you would. (August 17, 2000 WotC Chat Q91)


We can't put a seperate ruling for each and every card that does similar things.
The document is huge as it is.

The Imposter Oak ruling is worded badly (from a WotC chat), but note that they do basically say the correct thing. They didn't see to be sure which wording IOR had, but read exactly what they did say and it is not incorrect.
 
We can't put a seperate ruling for each and every card that does similar things.
Click to expand...
Of course. People should be familiar with concepts, with the principles behind how the game works and not require rulings for every card. I had to ask though, because Copycat apparently functions differently, despite the same wording (shuffle "hand" into deck, not shuffle "cards from hand" into deck) and there was a ruling that contradicted the IOR ruling.

The Imposter Oak ruling is worded badly (from a WotC chat), but note that they do basically say the correct thing. They didn't see to be sure which wording IOR had, but read exactly what they did say and it is not incorrect.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? Imposter Oak's Revenge says: "Your opponent shuffles his or her hand into his or her deck". Are you saying that the deck is not shuffled if the opponent has no cards in his or her hand?
Perhaps I'm not getting what you're saying...

Before this thread falls off page one, I was hoping to get some answers. I would like someone to:
-Recognize that there is something in the Quick Ball ruling that needs to be addressed.
or
-Explain the Copycat v Quick Ball thing in a way that makes sense to me.
thanx
 
You always have a hand. Always.

Quick Ball may produce no revealed cards to be shuffled in. The shuffle is dependent upon there being revealed cards because it is all one sentence on the card.

Agron MT will work the same way as Quick Ball. No energy cards in your discard pile means no shuffle of the deck

---------

The only awkward case I'm aware of with Copycat is when your opponent has no cards and you have just the copycat in hand. Deliberately reducing your hand to zero this way seems legal to me even though it is very close to playing a card for no effect. (You still shuffle your deck)
 
Last edited:
Copycat: Always shuffle.
Quick Ball: Only shuffle it you have cards to go back into the deck.

To quote the IOR ruling:
Q. If my opponent has no hand and I play Imposter Oak's Revenge, do they still shuffle their deck?
A. If it says to shuffle cards into the deck, then NO SHUFFLING if no cards are shuffled in. If it states, Shuffle afterwards (like after using a Computer Search) then DO SHUFFLE!!! (Nov 30, 2000 WotC Chat, Q19)
Click to expand...
emphasis added

"If it says".
But that is not what it says. To be blunt, it's a bad ruling because they didn't look at the card before making it.
Remember, these were rulings made on the fly during live chats.
We don't do it that way now. We have meetings with PUI to discuss rulings and often go through three or four revisions of a ruling's wording before finalizing it. (not that we don't occasionally make an error or unclear statement as well, we are human).

The point is, you are trying to use an 8 year old ambiguous ruling (that's not wrong, just doesn't really directly answer the question) to maintain something about Copycat that it just doesn't say.

If a card says "shuffle your hand", you always shuffle because you always have a hand.
 
OK. So you cant shuffle zero cards under any circumstances.

I guess you need to change the ruling that is in the compendium right now, on Rowan, if you can't shuffle zero cards into your deck:
Professor Rowan (Secret Wonders; Diamond and Pearl)
Q. If I only have two cards in my hand and play Professor Rowan then I keep the one remaining card in my hand, but do I shuffle my deck or not (since I put zero cards from my hand into it)?
A. Shuffling is a must when playing Professor Rowan regardless of whether you put any cards back into your deck or not. (Apr 3, 2008 PUI Rules Team)
 
No, the ruling on Rowan is correct.
You should be saying "maybe PUI should errata it".
That would be their decision to make, but the ruling on that card is per Japan.
 
Please bear with me here:
Choose 1 card in your hand and shuffle the rest of your cards into your deck. Then, draw 4 cards (If this is the only card in your hand, you can't play this card.)
It says to shuffle cards, not hand. If it's true that one cannot shuffle zero cards, then why do you accept the current ruling?
 
Because it was noticed by PokeGym members that the Japanese card says to shuffle your remaining "hand" into your deck and we asked about it!
We got a reply back from Japan that if you have zero cards left in your hand, you still shuffle it in.

We issued a ruling on it per that ruling from Japan.
We do not have the power to issue an errata. That is for others to do or not do.
 
PokePop said:
Because it was noticed by PokeGym members that the Japanese card says to shuffle your remaining "hand" into your deck and we asked about it!
We got a reply back from Japan that if you have zero cards left in your hand, you still shuffle it in.
Click to expand...
So, there was a translation error in Rowan, and the original version does not say to shuffle cards into the deck?
 
PokePop said:
I have said what I am going to say on this ruling.
Click to expand...
I am trying to make sure I understand. It's a "yes or no" question: certainly you have the ability to respond to a yes/no question.:smile:

The original version does not say to shuffle cards into the deck?
 
Under Wotc the ENGLISH card text was pre-eminent.

Under POP the games' JAPANESE designers intent is pre-eminent. (PCL >> Chuck Norris)

I can't see how you can use an over seven year old old wotc rulling as the basis for an argument about the current game.

---------------

Not all yes/no questions can be answered: For example "Have you stopped beating your wife?" By insisting on a yes/no answer I suspect you have missed the point.
 
NoPoke said:
Not all yes/no questions can be answered: For example "Have you stopped beating your wife?" By insisting on a yes/no answer I suspect you have missed the point.
Click to expand...
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that at one point, you did beat your wife.

My question above makes no such presupposition.

I can't see how you can use an over seven year old old wotc rulling as the basis for an argument about the current game.
Click to expand...
If no ruling before 2003 has the "force of law" then there's no reason any of them should be up online, presented as legitimate rulings. The rulings, in fact, are still law, despite being old (PUI has stated this).

If I see what appears to be (PokePop did point out the bad wording of the old ruling) a contradiction/inconsistency in the rulings, I'm going to point it out.
 
ninetales1234 said:
So, there was a translation error in Rowan, and the original version does not say to shuffle cards into the deck?
Click to expand...
Guy, you quoted it. Right here:
Pop said:
Because it was noticed by PokeGym members that the Japanese card says to shuffle your remaining "hand" into your deck and we asked about it!
Click to expand...
So yes, apparently the Japanese says "hand" and not "cards."
 
Ninetales it makes no difference if your question is answered yes or no. It matters little if Rowan said 'cards' or 'hand' . The overriding principle, and one that makes many old wotc rullings problematic, is that the game is to be played how PCL currently intend it to be played. PCL have changed mechanics in the past and I'm sure they will change a few more in the future. None of the rullings in the compendium were wrong at the time they were written. Time, however, changes many things.

Regarding the wife beating, which I noticed you didn't answer :D , the presumption in your question is that a yes or no answer to your particular question somehow increases understanding of how the game works. Unfortunately this isn't the case because play as written has long since been abandoned. All questions, without exception, have assumptions upon which they are asked.

As to old rullings no longer having force of law. I'm afraid that is very much the case. I've ignored old rullings when current game theory indicated that they are incorrect.
 
Last edited:
NoPoke said:
Under Wotc the ENGLISH card text was pre-eminent.

Under POP the games' JAPANESE designers intent is pre-eminent. (PCL >> Chuck Norris)

I can't see how you can use an over seven year old old wotc rulling as the basis for an argument about the current game.

---------------

Not all yes/no questions can be answered: For example "Have you stopped beating your wife?" By insisting on a yes/no answer I suspect you have missed the point.
Click to expand...

Stopped I haven't even started.. She ALLWAYS beats (well almost) me when we get matched in tournaments. Oregon States '06 I was ridding high as the #2 seed after swiss and she KO's me right out of the T16. Last year we met 5 times in Battle Roads and 5 times she beat me (and badly to.. Infenape was such a poor match up for Torterra) And just last Saturday she T2'd me in the booster draft when she started with a Burmy and I started with a lone Chimchar .. (you just had to go 1st didn't ya.)

So yes beating my wife is something I would like to experience - LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top