illegal attacks/steps during a turn, pt. 2

Discussion in 'TCG News & Gossip Discussion' started by PokeDaddy, Jun 2, 2008.

8 league13 468 60
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PokeDaddy

    PokeDaddy New Member

    From the vaults..... I want to revive this thread because it seems that players need a refresher on the steps of a turn.

    It is very important to understand that when the active player enters the attack phase (Step 3), you are in that phase. Unless permission is granted by your opponent to go back into mid turn phase (Step 2), you are in the last step of your turn.

    I bring this up in the context of declaring an illegal attack. If you declare an illegal attack, you cannot add an energy, retreat, what ever, without the express consent of your opponent.

    Last edited: Jun 2, 2008
  2. Pikamaster

    Pikamaster Active Member

    O.K. Say your pokemon has 2 attacks and you have enough energy for the first one, but not enough for the second. If you announce your second attack,(which you don't have the energy for) and your opponent says you can't attach energy to be able to use the second attack, do you do the first attack?
  3. SD PokeMom

    SD PokeMom Mod Supervisor Staff Member

    seems clear to me: did you read the linked thread in the OP? if they don't allow you to 'go back' you do the attack you have the energy for, or pass. your choice.

  4. Pikamaster

    Pikamaster Active Member

    Oops. I didn't click the second link. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
  5. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    This was one of the BEST rulings ever!

    As a side-note, last week at our BR, we had one player say "pass" then immediately recant and say, "No, I'll attack." Obviously, his opponent didn't want to allow the recant, so I ruled that no attack would be allowed that turn because of the "pass" statement.

    The logic for this ruling is that Pokemon now has Phases. When you enter the next Phase, you can't backup to the previous Phase without your opponent's permission, unless of course some mandatory action was skipped (ie., you forgot to draw a card at the start of your turn, you didn't flip to wake up).
  6. Magic_Umbreon

    Magic_Umbreon Researching Tower Scientist, Retired

    This came up at my States on Saturday. Opponent declared an attack that couldn't be performed. Judge: no knowledge of phases and "illegal attack = not valid so energies can still be played etc.".

    What I'm most interested in, as it is an inevitable consequence of every situation involving jumping into a phase, is spirit of the game. Obviously, it's OK according to SotG because it was ruled as at your opponent's discresion, and that wouldn't be ruled if it was against SotG to stop your opponent attacking. Whenever I've been in these situations, I always feel sort of guilty for not letting people go back. Even though it is SotG, I sort of feel like I'm not being fair. Yet, whenever it's too much of an advantage I can't keep myself from disallowing my opponent. Catch 22: I want to follow SotG by making the best plays, but I feel SotG is saying "be leniant not pedantic". For personal reasons, I'd prefer if it wasn't opponent's decisions ie. you're either catapulted back to the main phase or locked into the battle phase, but it is always the same.
  7. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    An easy way out is to call over the judge. Judges DON'T have descretion to allow "takebacks" if they are asked to rule. The only problem occurs when you have judges who don't know the rules, but that's a separate issue.

    In the past, I used to ask the player if he wanted to allow his opponent a redo. I now believe that's a bad question for the judge to ask, so now I don't allow takebacks once I've been asked to rule.
  8. PokeDaddy

    PokeDaddy New Member

    The reason for my posting this in the first place was that I had three (3) occurances of this yesterday. Each time, my ruling to the table (match) was the same.

    • "OK, Player A, did you declare this attack." Yes.
    • "OK, do you both agree that there is insufficient energy to do that attack therefore it is an illegal attack". Yes.
    • "OK, so this is the ruling. Once you are in the attack phase, if you declare an illegal attack, you can default to another attack that you do have the energy requirements for met. If you do not have the needed energy to do any attack, you have the option to ask your opponent to go back into the game-play step and do other things. Your opponent has the option of saying yes or saying no. Are you both clear on the ruling?" Yes.
    Then I step back and let the players decide.

    Our resposibility is to inform players of a ruling. We do it evenly, without bias, and without making anyone feel guilty. They need to decide where to go from there.
  9. mumsascrappa

    mumsascrappa Active Member

    Fabulous approach!
  10. P_A

    P_A Active Member

    Yes, I agree. That was well handled. Hope you don't mind if I copy your style?
  11. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    Yup, well handled.

    I used to allow the take-back after called to rule, but I've changed. IMO, judges shouldn't allow take-backs once they've been called to rule. Just my opinion though, which was the official ruling in another TCG I play. The logic is that judges shouldn't put players in the position of being the "bad guy" for not allowing a take-back.
  12. Lawman

    Lawman Active Member

    But that is NOT the rule SteveP. The ruling is to tell the players that a return to the earlier phase CAN occur IF the other player allows it. To not advise otherwise is a failure to rule properly by the Judge. Your 2 quotes above dont jive then, do they?

    This is a good reminder Steve (PokeDaddy) of a very good ruling. Especially with Nats just around the corner!

    Last edited: Jun 2, 2008
  13. SD PokeMom

    SD PokeMom Mod Supervisor Staff Member

    why are you applying a rule from 'another TCG' to THIS one when judging?

  14. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    First, show me in the rules where it's the judge's responsibility to inform players when asked to rule that take-backs a way to side-step the ruling. Second, explain to me why a judge would ever want to "advise" players a way out of their strategic mistakes. Finally, tell me how you're NOT indirectly putting pressure on some tender-hearted player that if he doesn't allow the take-back, he's a meanie.

    Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

    Give me a break! First off, when ruling, the rules don't require me as a judge to "advise" players that they can get out of their mistakes by requesting their opponents to give them take-backs. Second, in the absense of this requirement, I'll use "outside" experience where others have considered how inappropriate it is for judges to allow take-backs when asked to rule.

    Finally, I got slammed when I suggested that judges "advise" players that taking a prize penalty will change the prize-count. Yet, when I condemn a different kind of judge's "advice", those same professors slam me again. Who's contradicting who!
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2008
  15. Serebii1997J

    Serebii1997J New Member

    This issue happened at NY Brooklyn BR last Saturday. Garchomp against Hurricane. Hurricane used Ferilagators second attack, but didn't notice there was a Crystal Beach in play, Gator had a D.R.E and Water. He announced the attack, but his opponent said he couldn't. He did have a Wind Storm, but he already announced. He was not able to do anything else, and pass his turn.
  16. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member more thought.

    The rules are clear. Once you enter the attack phase, you can't back up. When asked to rule, judges MUST enforce that rule.

    Opponents can allow take-backs, of almost any sort. Once judges get involved with take-backs during their rulings, we'll have to start making SOTG rulings when one player allows take-backs and the other doesn't.

    Take-backs are exceptions afforded to players, NOT judges. It's NOT my job to "advise" players about exceptions that side-step the rules; in fact, it would be inappropriate to "advise" players about such exceptions.
  17. Lawman

    Lawman Active Member

    No one is forcing a player to give a "take back". It is simply part of the ruling, as evidenced by the thread that was linked SteveP. You can consider my post as a clarification of the rule or a slam.....either way I meant it, you will seem to still take it the wrong way. I was merely pointing out the seemingly opposite positions you took on the SAME issue. On the other thread, I simply stated (as did many others) that a judge should not advise/coach a player into NOT taking a PP bc it MAY activate a Scramble situation. You openly stated that you had ruled that way. I didnt. Again, your ruling is contrary to the way we have been taught, instructed, etc as the PROPER way to do it.

    When a fellow Prof posts and makes a definite answer and it isnt the "best way" to handle a situation, a fellow Prof should post and give the "better" way of doing it so that there is CONSISTENCY in the way a particular situation/ruling is made.

    Dont you agree that consistency in rulings is a proper goal for all of OP?

    Yes, you are correct that if a player makes an illegal attack, they are in the atk phase and cannot go back. The only way to do so is IF the other player allows it. Many times, it is the offending player that does not know the rule that calls over the judge. The other player may very well allow a "take back", but the 1st player doesnt believe that should be the reason, thinking they ought to be able to correct it themselves "since they hadnt played an energy yet that turn" or some other excuse.

    It is no different from the PP situation really. As judges, we cannot "advise" the other player that it may not be in their best interest to actually take said PP, but we can and SHOULD tell them both, as part of the ruling that "my ruling is a GP error major, a PP will be player B, you may take said penalty or not, your call" and end it that way. So, the other player can basically allow a "take back", but the judge has noted the error to track.

    Even if player B allows the take back, the error is still noted as a GP error minor, with a caution/warning given to track. Player A still made an error and the other judge(s) in the event need to know about it for future rds.


    Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

    What would you rather have happen? Player A makes an illegal atk and B allows a take back (showing SotG) and they never call a judge over. (Only problem though, this is the 3rd time in the same tourney that A made the same error)


    Should the players call the judge over to note the error, even if they solved it themselves by agreeing to the take back or not. The error gets noted, the appropriate penalty given and play moves on.

    Sloppy play by players ought to be noted. Sloppy play will eventually bite them hard. That is reality. Likewise, we as judges cannot correct a problem if we are never alerted to it in the 1st place.


    Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

    Just to remind folks, this is what Mike Liesik stated in the earlier thread.

    "If you declare an attack that you don't meet the requirements for.

    If you announce an attack that requires Fighting Energy, but you don't have any Fighting Energy attached, you can pick another attack that you do have the Energy for. If do have the Energy to do that attack, but you meant to do another attack, you need to ask your opponent's permission to do that other attack. If he or she says no, you're stuck with the original attack."
    Michael Liesik
    Pokemon Organized Play
    Pokemon USA, Inc.

    Got a question that you need answered? Your best bet is to contact POP directly
    So, just bc the Judge is called over, that does not mean that B wont allow a take back. Player B must be allowed to give a take back or not. If B says no, then A is stuck in atk phase and either passes or atks with a properly powered move.

    Last edited: Jun 2, 2008
  18. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    Without ressurrecting the prize-take issue, just let me state that I've changed my oppinion slightly. Now, I just say, "you may take a prize which means you'll have X prizes and your opponent will have Y prizes."

    Also, the MikeL ruling referenced is directed at players, not judges. The ruling says nothing about what happens when a judge is called in to rule. Furthermore, MikeL says the following in a later post:

    To me, that statement is clear that judges should NOT get involved with take-backs.

    Yes, if you enter the Attack phase, you CAN back-up your mistake, if you ask your opponent for permission. If you ask the judge, that's a different story.
  19. Lawman

    Lawman Active Member

    So, if B allows the take back w/o a judges intervention, do you as a judge SteveP, want them to call you over to note the error? You didnt address that issue.

  20. SteveP

    SteveP Active Member

    So lawman, according to the MikeL quote you posted, the official rule is that changing the "illegal" attack to another "legal" attack is also only permitted with the opponent's permission. I guess I was wrong about that one. PokeDaddy was also wrong. Ooops.

    Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

    Why would a judge need to ever get involved with every take-back?

    As far as active judging, you make a good point. For example, if I notice someone retreats, plays an energy, then retreats again, I'm obviously going to intervene. If the player asks his opponent for a take-back, I'm NOT going to say he can't make that request. However, I AM going to verify that the take-back also involves taking back the energy attachment if needed. And yes, I'll probably issue a verbal caution to the offending player. He attempted to make an illegal action. NEVERTHELESS, I'm not going to intervene and say, "you can't retreat again, unless your opponent wants to give you a take-back." That would be "advising" the player a way to get out of his mistake.
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page