Pidgeotto Trainer
New Member
The following are two situations that happened at a states I went to:
Scenario A:
I feel silly about this one, but since it was late in a game (+3) with a judge sitting right next to me and it was my only chance at winning, I check to see if Junk Arm can get back stadiums since they say trainer on them. I ask and he says no as I thought. I play on and lose next turn.
Scenario B:
Again in +3 and weighing multiple scenarios, I ask the following question: can attacks that remove energy get through 'agility' like effects. (for example Machamp Prime Crushing Punch vs Unfezant Fly attack)
I am told that I am not allowed to be told this ruling until I actually attack with that situation, otherwise that would be coaching. I am forced to play on not knowing what would happen if I used such an attack. (It if matters, the Fly effect was not currently in play, but it could have been next turn and it affected what I wanted to do with my supporters, energy drops etc. FWIW, I ended up winning and the situation didn't end up happening.)
This is only the 2nd time I can remember getting a scenario B ruling of "I can't tell you, that's coaching." The other time was 3 years ago. Both times I thought it was not fair.
Several more times I have been told 'hypothetical rulings' as I was in scenario A. I was not forced to play the Junk Arm and then find out whether it could do what I wanted or not. I asked a clarification of the rules and I received it. I know I have had at least 1 scenario A I can remember at both nationals and worlds. (One of them was asking procedure on Entei-Raikou Legend ending a game where one side takes only 6 prizes and the other side takes more. I was able to ask this before the attack happened, and I was the opponent of the Entei-Raikou.)
I'm not sure if the times I've received scenario B, the judges have been misinterpreting 'coaching' or if they are correct that that is how coaching is defined. If scenario B is correct by the rule book, it seriously needs to change.
If scenario B is the rule, it expects all players to memorize the entire compendium and every tricky ruling associated with it. This is asking for too much. If this what is required, we hardly need judges then. It does not seem right at all to have players ask for a ruling, one that will likely determine if they win or lose the game, and some rule says 'Nope, you have to try it and hope for the best. Good luck!'
Waiting on a top deck or a coin flip to win is part of the game, hoping the rule is X not Y when there are judges right there whose job it is to know but won't tell you should not be part of the game IMO.
This is in no way coaching. Coaching is 'you should attach an energy to Pikachu', 'Catcher up the Eelektrik!' etc. In my scenario B, a judge did not have to point out any what I consider 'strategic information'. I had done all the thinking, I had realized that if the rules were X, I could do A, and if the rules were Y, I could do B. But I didn't know the tricky rules for the situation. A player should always be able to ask about the rules and a judge should be able to clarify the rules. It is up to the player to make the correct strategy and decisions, but they should know the rules going in.
IMO, a judge clarifying rules when asked is not coaching, it's being a judge.
Obviously a player needs to know the basic rules of the game, but unless you are asking them to memorize the entire compendium, we need to be able to ask 'hypothetical questions' like in scenario A, in order to be able to make the correct strategies.
Furthermore, if scenario B is correct, it encourages players to lie about knowledge of rulings. In a different 'hypothetical ruling' situation at this states, I volunteered the ruling which I knew 100% when my opponent asked, saving the time of calling over a judge. But if scenario B is true, I could have said I didn't know the ruling, and my opponent would be stuck if they called over a judge. They would have to risk it potentially to my advantage. Again, this doesn't seem right to me. The only way I can see this justified is if players are expected to know the entire compendium of rulings which doesn't seem right either.
Scenario A:
I feel silly about this one, but since it was late in a game (+3) with a judge sitting right next to me and it was my only chance at winning, I check to see if Junk Arm can get back stadiums since they say trainer on them. I ask and he says no as I thought. I play on and lose next turn.
Scenario B:
Again in +3 and weighing multiple scenarios, I ask the following question: can attacks that remove energy get through 'agility' like effects. (for example Machamp Prime Crushing Punch vs Unfezant Fly attack)
I am told that I am not allowed to be told this ruling until I actually attack with that situation, otherwise that would be coaching. I am forced to play on not knowing what would happen if I used such an attack. (It if matters, the Fly effect was not currently in play, but it could have been next turn and it affected what I wanted to do with my supporters, energy drops etc. FWIW, I ended up winning and the situation didn't end up happening.)
This is only the 2nd time I can remember getting a scenario B ruling of "I can't tell you, that's coaching." The other time was 3 years ago. Both times I thought it was not fair.
Several more times I have been told 'hypothetical rulings' as I was in scenario A. I was not forced to play the Junk Arm and then find out whether it could do what I wanted or not. I asked a clarification of the rules and I received it. I know I have had at least 1 scenario A I can remember at both nationals and worlds. (One of them was asking procedure on Entei-Raikou Legend ending a game where one side takes only 6 prizes and the other side takes more. I was able to ask this before the attack happened, and I was the opponent of the Entei-Raikou.)
I'm not sure if the times I've received scenario B, the judges have been misinterpreting 'coaching' or if they are correct that that is how coaching is defined. If scenario B is correct by the rule book, it seriously needs to change.
If scenario B is the rule, it expects all players to memorize the entire compendium and every tricky ruling associated with it. This is asking for too much. If this what is required, we hardly need judges then. It does not seem right at all to have players ask for a ruling, one that will likely determine if they win or lose the game, and some rule says 'Nope, you have to try it and hope for the best. Good luck!'
Waiting on a top deck or a coin flip to win is part of the game, hoping the rule is X not Y when there are judges right there whose job it is to know but won't tell you should not be part of the game IMO.This is in no way coaching. Coaching is 'you should attach an energy to Pikachu', 'Catcher up the Eelektrik!' etc. In my scenario B, a judge did not have to point out any what I consider 'strategic information'. I had done all the thinking, I had realized that if the rules were X, I could do A, and if the rules were Y, I could do B. But I didn't know the tricky rules for the situation. A player should always be able to ask about the rules and a judge should be able to clarify the rules. It is up to the player to make the correct strategy and decisions, but they should know the rules going in.
IMO, a judge clarifying rules when asked is not coaching, it's being a judge.
Obviously a player needs to know the basic rules of the game, but unless you are asking them to memorize the entire compendium, we need to be able to ask 'hypothetical questions' like in scenario A, in order to be able to make the correct strategies.
Furthermore, if scenario B is correct, it encourages players to lie about knowledge of rulings. In a different 'hypothetical ruling' situation at this states, I volunteered the ruling which I knew 100% when my opponent asked, saving the time of calling over a judge. But if scenario B is true, I could have said I didn't know the ruling, and my opponent would be stuck if they called over a judge. They would have to risk it potentially to my advantage. Again, this doesn't seem right to me. The only way I can see this justified is if players are expected to know the entire compendium of rulings which doesn't seem right either.
Last edited:
