Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

AUTHORISED POLL- new game rule on trainers

NoPoke

NoPoke

Active Member
Well since I've been given permission to start a poll here it is..

Q> Are you happy with the restriction that you cannot play a trainer unless you can comply with all its actions?​

=====

some background can be found here http://www.pokegym.net/showthread.php?t=3729

On the face of it the change doesn't seem that big but it has potentially sweeping consequences. I've tried to make the question as neutral as possible so as not to unduely influence the vote. :D

I don't think that the new meta-game rule improves the game at all in addition to bringing up all sorts of difficulties about how much it is reasonable to expect a player to remember. In additionion it has sweeping consequences for many of the rullings within the compendium. Anyone care to rewrite it? The Compendium looses much of its usefullness if rulings cannot be relied upon.

My vote...

NO ! give us back our strategy!

I see no problem with leaving the option for a free search of your deck or a shuffle that many trainers have as a part of their function. Most of the time you won't use it, so why take it away?
 
Last edited:
personally, I don't really see the problem with it. It's not like I've done anything like that in the past, I haven't, and I don't think that I'll ever see the need to, even against Gardy ex.
 
NoPoke said:
Well since I've been given permission to start a poll here it is..

Q> Are you happy with the restriction that you cannot play a trainer unless you can comply with all its actions?​

=====

No.

I'm not in favor of a trivial change that 1) does nothing to improve the game and 2) makes sweeping changes to prior rulings. BTW, I don't much use those strategies myself.
Click to expand...
 
Where the Card contradicts the rules go with the Card Text ... Now we have where the card contradicts the rules we'll make a rulling YUK!

Playtest properly and don't make the card if BROKEN or unclear ...

I VOTE NO on Proposition NoPoke!... Actually I vote NO to Propersitioning NoPoke ... ROFL

Lets get back to simple rules and simple rulings and a little or a lot of complexity in the strategy.. depending on how you want to play...
 
Last edited:
I am not happy with the restriction or with the ruling itself.

I think that we need a clear ruling here.

POP needs to say that either we can play a trainer card whenever allowed to do so or that we can only play a trainer card when there is a chance of success.

The ruling now is unlease for things like Full Heal on a healthy Pokemon, NRG removal on a Pokemon with no NRG cards, etc. There are strategic reasons for making these plays at certain times and in certain games. Gardevior's feedback being just the latest.
 
We should be able to use trainer cards even if we know they won't work, for many reasons, one of which would be defending against Gardy ex, who at my league is used so much, that I need to protect from Feedback.
 
Personally, i really dont care about the new restrictions. Whenever I use a Trainer card, its because I really need to use it, not to just throw away.

Therefore, I say that by adding in this new restriction, it would improve the overall effectiveness of the trainer. If you're gonna use a trainer just to throw it away, then it shows that the card really isnt effective in the deck What-so-ever and shows no synergy with other cards.

In other words, i say yes to the new restriction.
 
Does this new rule mean that I can't play a Professor Birch if I don't have enough cards in my deck to get my hand to have a size of six cards? (purposely decking out).

Well, playing trainers when you know they'd be worthless seems a bit odd but I can definitely understand and agree that it should be up to the trainer to decide if they wish to waste the card (especially with the examples above).

My vote: No, I do not agree with the new restriction.
 
I say we should be able to use cards even if we know that the card will not do what its function will not work how it is suppose to. I see no way of being able to tell if someone is doing something like this on purpose or by accident. I know there have been a few times I have gone searching for an energy and found there was none. How would you prove someone did this on purpose?
 
By the way, while it's an authorized poll, responses with reasons will carry much more weight with PUI (and/or Japan if they decide to appeal the ruling).
 
Well I have found that the game will never change to what you want it to be, so if you don't like it, go play a new game. I have been doing that lately. Pokemon right now is dominated by one deck and well unless you play unlimited, the game gets to boring with nothing new coming out. No new mechanics, just over-powered cards trying to overpower each other. There hasn't been a new mechanic since 9 sets ago(in japan). Sorry.
 
I say no. There can be reasons to throw away trainers, like feedback, anticopycat, Professor Birch, any card that shuffles your deck, Erika's maids(I believe) w/o any erika's pokemon in your deck, throwing away rare candy when you don't need it anymore, so it cannot be used as an attack by somebody. Does this mean you cannot try to deter a damage swap alakazam by playing goop gas in your turn, while there are no powers to shut off. You can't force your opponent to shuffle their deck with cards that shuffle some of their cards in, like Lass when they have no trainers. You can't shuffle your deck when you play gambler as your last card? You can't use trader if there are no pokemon in your deck. I say that if this goes through, anything that targets your hand will go from average to greatly broken. Also, if this goes through, it could get incredibly ridiculous. Now what are you supposed to do with specific searches like the boss's way when you used up its conditions, like you've pulled all of your dark pokemon.
 
No, I'm not happy with that ruling and I will not follow it. Because we are not official having OP activities there is no problem by not following that ruling.
This is one of the rulings making people leaving the official OP structure and go on without OP or turning into another game.
To get every player/judge on one line in this case is hard, but when you can give a clear explanation, with good reasons why this ruling should be removed, there is a change.

I think next ruling after this one will be, If you can not comply with all the actions of a trainercard, condsider it as not played and take it back in your hand and reverse all actions already taken on that card.
That ruling is a logical follow up for this one.

Were is the borderline, because if you can forfill part of the action you may play the trainercard, but if you can't forfill it you are not allowed, weird situation.

Better to make the simple rule, if you put a a trainercard on the table it's played and even if you can't complete all of even part of the action it's still considered as played. So it goes to you discard pile.
Trainerscards are put in a deck with a function/meaning, doesn't matter if it's used to search your deck (like playing an energy search when there is none left) or really for the action discribed on the card.
So if you play a trainer and know it can't do what it should the trainer goes out of play. Because that trainer was in the deck with a reason, you pay by discarding a "fee". The trainer is gone and can't be used anymore. If such actions gives you the change to get rid of cards in your hand let it be, you pay for it because you can't use it anymore. But this way it's your own choise and you spoil a function in your deck.
Not only in the Gardevoir EX situation, but what if I have a bad hand and by getting rit of 2-3 potions I can play Prof Birch to improve my hand. I pay a "fee" because trainers I might need futher in the game are out of play.
 
Last edited:
Rainbowgym said:
Better to make the simple rule, if you put a a trainercard on the table it's played and even if you can't complete all of even part of the action it's still considered as played. So it goes to you discard pile.
Click to expand...
well, you can't prove that the first time a player claimed to not know if the required card was in the deck was the truth. If I know I only have 16 energy cards in my deck and have them all in play, but the opponent doesn't know that, I could use my Energy Search knowing it won't go anywhere and the opponent or judge will have no proof. All they will know is that that is my one time loop hole of the rule for that game, if I didn't say anything (and no deck lists were required/looked at).

Rainbowgym said:
Trainerscards are put in a deck with a function/meaning, doesn't matter if it's used to search your deck ... or really for the action discribed on the card.
So if you play a trainer and know it can't do what it should the trainer goes out of play. ...The trainer is gone and can't be used anymore.
Click to expand...
but wasting cards is done all the time. In unlimited, if there are cards that I no longer need in my hand, i discard them (the discard pile is out of play) off of Professor Oak or some other card. The card was put in for a purpose at one point, but there are situations where the cards do not have that purpose.
Stadiums as well. If I use Sprout Tower, for example, to reduce damage by colorless pokémon, and it is a proven fact that my opponent plays no stadium cards or colorless Pokémon in their deck (though past experience, conversation, or a combination of cards allowing me to see my oponent's deck, prizes, and hand) I will just play Sprout Tower to decrease the amount of cards in my hand, even though it serves no other purpose. Would this example of Sprout Tower get called back by a judge?

There are several strategies behind the wasting of cards in your hand. This ruling can't be inforced and will be prone to manipulation many times.
 
Last edited:
I say no because it gives an unfair advantage to anyone who is wasting cards in their hand. That means they have a better chance of drawing exactly what they need when they copycat or oak, they draw more off of professor birch. Second it screws over almost every ruling put down in pokemon for too little gain. Gardevoir isn't that powerful, at the last tournament I played in it only made 5th place out of 20, not exactly godevoir any longer. There isn't a point making such a sweeping ruling just to screw over one card in the game.
 
Articjedi said:
There isn't a point making such a sweeping ruling just to screw over one card in the game.
Click to expand...

Why are you assuming that the ruling philosophy has anything to do with Gardy?
It totally has to do with the Japanese game philosophy and how they play vs how we in the US are used to playing.

This is akin to how their baseball games quite often end in ties.
The one time a US game ended in a tie, there was an uproar, even though it was an All Star game and had nothing to do with the standings.
PUI is more responsive to TPC in regards to this than WotC was. WotC kept it more like MTG.
 
Is not to do with Gard EX, it's just for playing and judging purpose.
Makes it a lot easier to judge, if a card is taken from you hand and placed on the table, you do what it says or part of it or none it doesn't matter. The card is going to the discard pile afterwards.

We ruled this a time ago, to got rid of all those stupid discussions which are getting more and more as I see.
Players will get used to this fast, if you don't know if you want to use the card leave it in your hand. If you put it on the table, sorry next station is the discard pile.(whether you could use it or not)
 
We should be able to use trainer cards even if we know they won't work, for many reasons, one of which would be defending against Gardy ex, who at my league is used so much, that I need to protect from Feedback
Click to expand...
just because of gardy ex,absol and what so ever just to change the ruling?

why dont u ban gardy ex ,i think its too broken

ok heres the 2 format which make gardy ex super powerful

IN UNLIMITED FORMAT

erika+ gardy ex

when u use erika and your opponent does not wish to draw ,he is in a loss
even he draws the cards ,he still die!

IN MODIFIED FORMAT

well this is not yugioh as you can set cards lol :)
well to me there are only a few trainers that reduce your hand size

such trainers are

desert shaman
copycat(unless your opponent has less cards)
oak research

BUT we dont just put these cards to counter gardy ex right? what if that player doesnt use gardy ex ,we will lose too due to less hand size
 
And what is if you have ,for example, 7 R-Energy Cards in play, 6 in your Discard Pile and 3 in your hand and totally only 16 in your deck. Now, you could know that an Energy Search would be senseless if you would count all the R-Energies you have access to, so you aren´t able to play it because you could (or should?) know it would fail. Right? Or not? Very silly. Not only out of this reason, but out of other reasons said by others above, my answer is a clear NO to this new ruling!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top