Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

The "no effect" rule needs to go.

P

paint panic

New Member
I firmly believe that the rule that states you cannot perform an action for no effect is a poor rule that introduces unnecessary complications and arbitrariness into the game.

From the Compendium Lv. X:

Q. Could I play a trainer if it's obvious that it will have no effect (i.e. Life Herb on a Pokémon without any damage and with no Special Conditions on it)?
A. No, you cannot play a card if it is obvious that you cannot do what the card is supposed to do at that moment. (Sep 22, 2005 PUI Rules Team)
Click to expand...

A somewhat well-known example:

Q. Delcatty's "Energy Draw" Poké-POWER states: "Once during your turn (before your attack), you may discard 1 energy card from your hand. Then draw up to 3 cards from your deck." Can you discard the energy and not draw because it states "draw UP TO 3 cards"?
A. No. If you discard an Energy card, you must draw at least 1 card from your deck. If you don't have any cards left in your deck, you can't use this power. When a card says "draw up to X cards", it addresses a range of 1 to X. (Jul 19, 2007 PUI Rules Team)
Click to expand...

So, according to this ruling, if there are no cards left in your deck, you cannot use Energy Draw, because it is known that the power will have "no effect." Therefore, we can conclude that discarding a card to use the power is not an "effect" of the power, but rather a "cost" of the power, even though I do not believe that "costs" and "effects" are well-defined anywhere in the rules.

But, from Ask the Masters:

M_Liesik said:
Per the JP Q&A website.

Yes, you can discard 2 cards from your hand even if your opponent’s Active Pokémon is an Evolved Pokémon.

But after you discard 2 cards, you don’t get to do rest of the effect of this Poké-Power. Your opponent’s doesn’t switch his or her Pokémon.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how this isn't completely contradictory. The game is aware that your opponent's Pokemon is an Evolved Pokemon and I believe the game can deduce that Regice's power will have no "effect," just a "cost," but, for some reason, you can use Regice's power to no effect despite not being able to use Delcatty's to no effect.

OK, so you can't perform an action if it's not going to have any effect. With that in mind, this ruling makes perfect sense:

Q. Can I use "Call for Family" if my bench is full just to look through my deck?
A. No, you cannot use Call for Family to search if your bench is full. (Jul 17, 2008 PUI Rules Team)
Click to expand...

You would think it would be reasonable to extend this ruling to other attacks that place a Pokemon on your bench, which is why this ruling for Garchomp Lv. X is so surprising!

Q. Can I use Garchomp Lv.X's "Restore" attack, even if I don't have an open spot on my Bench?
A. Yes you could do the attack, but it would have no effect (other than perhaps to get rid of Holon Circle, etc.). (Jul 10, 2008 PUI Rules Team)
Click to expand...

So you can use an attack for no effect? Another contradiction. It may be the case that you cannot use Call for Family to search your deck, but you can announce the attack and get rid of Holon Circle. In this case, I think the wording of this ruling needs to be clarified.

There are hundreds, if not more, of these situations in Pokemon where there is the opportunity to use a power, attack, or card for no effect. The Compendium simply cannot be totally comprehensive regarding these situations, and so judges are forced to extrapolate based on the existing rulings. I thought "you cannot perform an action for no effect" was the way to go, but there are certainly arguments to be made and rulings to be cited for both positions.

I believe the most elegant solution is to get rid of the rule that says you cannot perform an action for no effect. Performing actions to no effect in order to stall is already against the rules, and I do not believe this would significantly increase stalling. It would also not change the game dramatically - Regice remains a pretty good way to dump cards out of your hand, you can ditch Rare Candies before you Cosmic Power without having a Basic in play, and so on, but for the most part, I believe the game would remain fundamentally the same without the confusion and seemingly arbitrary rulings regarding the "no effect" rule.
 
Very interesting points, and I agree as well. The game shouldn't have points where it contridicts each other so much. Removing the rule sounds like the best solution.
 
This is similar to Snorlax d, as far as I see it, as you werent allowed to use his power to put him to sleep if he had no damage counters. If you cant do that, why can you use the Regi's powers?
 
Strongly agree. All we need is one consistent ruling. The "up to" not including 0 has been an awfully complicated issue for quite a while now. Claydol tells you to put "up to 2" cards on the bottom of your deck, but we assume that automatically means exactly 1 or 2? (And hundreds of other examples.)

Can I Oak's Visit, drawing 0, but then put 1 card on the bottom of my deck? (Say to avoid decking.) I would have no clue. The rulebook would tell me "do what I can" and the judge might say "No, you're not drawing any cards."

From what I know, though, a lot of this isn't the fault of PUI, it's that it is difficult to communicate between Japan and the U.S.
 
Ness said:
Strongly agree. All we need is one consistent ruling. The "up to" not including 0 has been an awfully complicated issue for quite a while now. Claydol tells you to put "up to 2" cards on the bottom of your deck, but we assume that automatically means exactly 1 or 2? (And hundreds of other examples.)
Click to expand...
Claydol also has a "if you do" phrase. That makes it clear that you have to do at least one to get the second effect. Putting zero cards on the bottom is not "doing" anything.

From what I know, though, a lot of this isn't the fault of PUI, it's that it is difficult to communicate between Japan and the U.S.
Click to expand...
The judges would love for this all to be easier and clearer as well.
 
You cant play a card for no effect isn't a bad rule. Not knowing when or how it is to be applied is the issue. especially since the RegIce rulling seems to fly in the face of the rule that paying costs does not count as an effect.

Same thing goes for 'up to' : when does upto include zero? Only when searching your deck it seems.
 
One thing that has been clarified to us recently is that the "no effect" rule doesn't apply to Attacks.

That doesn't contradict the "can't play a card for no effect rule" because it isn't playing a card, it's using an attack.

The question at this point, is does it apply to Powers?
The examples of Regice and Delcatty are in direct opposition.

We agree that this need to be clarified.
 
I know that I would have given the opposite answer for Regices' Regi Move PokePOWER. makes me wonder what the Japanese card actually says.
 
PokePop said:
One thing that has been clarified to us recently is that the "no effect" rule doesn't apply to Attacks.

That doesn't contradict the "can't play a card for no effect rule" because it isn't playing a card, it's using an attack.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. Will the Compendium entry for Call for Family be updated to reflect this?
 
Can somebody point out a specific ambiguity with the "up to means at least one" ruling? It seems pretty clear and consistent to me. You can get 0 things out of a deck search because you're usually searching for specific things and you can always claim there are none in your deck.
 
upto in english means zero or more.

upto in Pokemon frequently means 1 or more. zero is not an option. except when it is. Hence the confusion.
 
All of these 'inconsistencies' can be easily justified with Japan saying "olol datz not a cost" which is why I think if this rule stays we need to define cost better than just discarding, because, as I understand it, Regice discarding 2 cards is NOT cost.
 
if thats the case with regice, then can u energy cycling with regirock when theres no fightings in the discard, even though it says fighting energy must be in there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top