Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

illegal attacks/steps during a turn, pt. 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
'pop and others.

I think where Steve P and others have issues with "mentioning the take-back" option is that when it comes out of the mouth of a judge, it really becomes a suggestion. No matter the tone given.

A player, especially a younger player, may feel "respect your elders" pressure to give the take-back, event if it was not suggested in so many words. Just the suggestion may be too much pressure.

Would it be also proper for the judge, after a match is reported to inform the player that they can concede to their opponent, even if the subject was never broached by either player? How different is that? I know I am really playing devil's advocate here, but how different are the two situations?

Is it then the responsibility of the coach or parent then to make sure the younger players know that they do not have to give the take-back, and in most every circumstance should not do so? We are now giving the advantage to the better supported players?

Not allowing a take-back is NOT against the spirit of the game, unless your opponent has already allowed you a take back, or if you deny one, and then ask for one later in the game. If you get a take-back, you should give one (not required, but SOTG).

More for discussion.

Vince
 
Last edited:
With regards to take-backs, "if-you-take-some-you-give-some" is DEFINATELY SOTG. If a player gives a take-back or two, then is refused one later in the game, I'd DEFINATELY consider issuing a SOTG penalty, no question.

Vince, your concession analogy is brilliant! :biggrin::thumb:

Player: "Hey judge, I accidently shuffled my discard pile into my deck. I was going to win this turn when I attacked and KO'd for my last prize."

Judge: "You get a game loss penalty, unless your opponent wants to concede."

The concession IS an option in this situation because a take-back is definately NOT an option, but why would the judge ever bring up the concession option. I certainly wouldn't.
 
Steve. I am not sure if there is a "SOTG" penalty for not giving a take-back after receiving one.

I have actually seen that happen. Usually it is a tier 1 player who allows it to a tier 2 player. The tier 2 player then refuses it to the tier 1 player later in the same game.

I don't penalize the tier 2 player, if called over, but I make it very clear to them how it should fold both ways.

The tone of the match always changes with respect to the tier 1 player. All the friendliness is sucked out of the match, and the tier 1 focuses only on destroying the tier 2, doing a minimal nice game, and then walking away, and spreading the occurence to their friends.

Vince
 
If this has been said before, then just consider the following re-emphasis on what has been previously mentioned:

Steve P has good foundation to his ruling of the illegal attack issue, but I feel that when/when not to give players a choice in the matter is an age group concern. I see Juniors and Seniors being generally victimized if the judge puts the take-back option on the table, but Masters are "adult" enough to handle such a situation, even if it leaves the opponent angry and frustrated.

To me, this is one rare situation where Masters should deserve more leniency than their younger counterparts: they're old enough to deserve a say in weird circumstances.
 
To what right is the opponent angry and frustrated, except with themselves?

The opponent did not make a mistake, or a mistaken play.

It is always the truth that when the chips are on the table in big events, the player who plays the most consistant and clean will win more than the player who makes mistakes.

Nationals 2005. Curran H. wins when Andrew K. makes a mistake in the semifinal game, and James B. makes a mistake in the finals. Curran H. plays clean. Curran wins.

At that level, no take backs asked for, and no take backs offered. Mistakes were made, the players were angry at themselves for the mistakes, but they lived with them and moved on.

The trouble I have with take-backs is that they potentially penalize the player who plays correctly.

Vince
 
meganium45 said:
Steve. I am not sure if there is a "SOTG" penalty for not giving a take-back after receiving one.

I have actually seen that happen. Usually it is a tier 1 player who allows it to a tier 2 player. The tier 2 player then refuses it to the tier 1 player later in the same game.

I don't penalize the tier 2 player, if called over, but I make it very clear to them how it should fold both ways.

The tone of the match always changes with respect to the tier 1 player. All the friendliness is sucked out of the match, and the tier 1 focuses only on destroying the tier 2, doing a minimal nice game, and then walking away, and spreading the occurence to their friends.

Vince
Click to expand...
Nah Vince, depending on the situation, you could fit this into the Unsporting Conduct: Major category of Engaging in Gamesmanship. If it is apparent that Player A sought to gain an advantage over Player B by getting take-backs, yet later chose to increase that advantage by refusing take-backs, that's gamesmanship.

But yeah, I don't think it necessarily has to be a 1-for-1 balance. However, if Player A gave Player B five take-backs, then asked for one back and was flatly refused, that COULD be a problem, IMO.

I agree though that the "softer" points of SOTG are not strongly enforced in the Penalty Guideline.
 
If giving a take back is optional, how can you penalize someone for not giving one?

Sure, it's incredibly rude, but a SotG violation?
Maybe. But I don't see it as something that can be penalized.

A violation would be to laugh in their face and say "Ha! You loser! You gave me a take back but now you have to eat your mistake! Ownnnnz!"
 
A couple of years ago at Nationals, an opponent asked if he could have a take-back. I said "Yes, if you'll give me one if I ask for it later in the game."

He paused to think it over.

My reply - "Forget it. If you have to think about returning the favor, it's off the board."
 
At top level of competition, Regionals, States, and Nationals. Players masters and senior accept the fact that "Give no Quarter, because expect no Quarter to be given to you."

Now saying that, I still think it is stupid and that game losses are given for inconsequential but definite procedural errors. I don't like it, never will, but judges don't make the rules, they just try to consistently enforce them.
 
meganium45 said:
......I think where Steve P and others have issues with "mentioning the take-back" option is that when it comes out of the mouth of a judge, it really becomes a suggestion. No matter the tone given.
......
Click to expand...


True, and very hard to avoid. which is why I try to be as neutral as I can. " I can tell you how I would have to rule if you ask me, would you like me to do that?'

if they say yes...

"take backs are completely at the opponents discression, there is no disgrace either in the request or the refusal. Do you understand?"

then see what both say.

if the take back is offered....

"You understand that you do not have to do this. It is your choice"

Judges should try to stay on the fence (silent) when you might influence players.
 
PokePop said:
If giving a take back is optional, how can you penalize someone for not giving one?

Sure, it's incredibly rude, but a SotG violation?
Maybe. But I don't see it as something that can be penalized.

A violation would be to laugh in their face and say "Ha! You loser! You gave me a take back but now you have to eat your mistake! Ownnnnz!"
Click to expand...
Do you want to know how? Because I live by one of the oldest rules ever, the Golden Rule: Do unto others... :tongue:

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

The Gorn said:
A couple of years ago at Nationals, an opponent asked if he could have a take-back. I said "Yes, if you'll give me one if I ask for it later in the game."

He paused to think it over.

My reply - "Forget it. If you have to think about returning the favor, it's off the board."
Click to expand...
I love that one! Good response. :lol:

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

NoPoke said:
True, and very hard to avoid. which is why I try to be as neutral as I can. " I can tell you how I would have to rule if you ask me, would you like me to do that?'

if they say yes...

"take backs are completely at the opponents discression, there is no disgrace either in the request or the refusal. Do you understand?"

then see what both say.

if the take back is offered....

"You understand that you do not have to do this. It is your choice"

Judges should try to stay on the fence (silent) when you might influence players.
Click to expand...
And why would you say that? After saying that would you let the player take-back his "take-back" offer? And if so, is the take-back of the tack-back only allowed if the other players allows it? :tongue::wink:
 
Last edited:
PokePop has a good point here
If giving a take back is optional, how can you penalize someone for not giving one?

Sure, it's incredibly rude, but a SotG violation?
Maybe. But I don't see it as something that can be penalized.

A violation would be to laugh in their face and say "Ha! You loser! You gave me a take back but now you have to eat your mistake! Ownnnnz!"
Click to expand...

In my opinion after asking for and receiving a take-back if a player does not return "the favor" in some manner then -yes, it is incredibly rude. And since it IS an option then unless some extremely poor sportsmanship or something outrageous occured then it would be difficult to access a penalty for this.

Notice I said "after asking for and receiving a take-back if a player does not return "the favor" in some manner and NOT "does not allow "a take-back" in return.

Since - in theory players are supposed to be paying attention to the progression of the game play then it stands to reason that in doing so if a player can see that their opponent is setting up for a potential misplay then say something to stop it BEFORE the need for a take-back occurs - then "the favor" would be returned and the SofG would be fullfilled.

In actuality there already is a built in penalty for defaulting on the SofG - a natural one that no judge could levy nor in levying any other penalty could cause to be repaired - the loss of your opponents "Good Faith" and your standing as a "Worthy Opponent" and a correlating change in the atmosphere of the game.

~ in my humble opinion ~

I will add again (in my opinion) that these are basic foundational guidelines for playing Pokemon. These things should clearly taught to new players coming into the leagues and be re-emaphsised to existing players at the league level. Players should know this before arriving at a tournament or Battle Roads.

Ledyba
 
SteveP

take-backs, asked for, offered, accepted, or declined, are not "Judge" issues. Yet sometimes you will be called over and asked. Kobayashi Maru for the judges LOL
 
PokeDaddy said:
With that said, what would you do if asked the question?
Click to expand...

Without these phases? They can't declare an attack and complete it witout having the proper energy. With that in mind they still have the ability to play trainers/supporters, attach energy, retreat, etc. I think if your allowed to do that during your turn then you SHOULD be able to no matter whats taken place as long as it's not conflicting with the basic rules of the game.
 
To be honest, that's how I would have ruled... until POP announced this ruling.
Now that they have this ruling, it must be followed.
 
Too easy to try to pull a fast one without these phases, sorry. Even out the luck vs. the 'n00bs' and all -- get a KO unnoticed when you're energy starved, conserve that needed resource for the next turn to take out the counterpuncher, etc.

Yah, I regret it hits the sloppy or tired player pretty hard (and I've been both), but you learn pretty quick to do that thing in the theme rule book 'check to see you have the energy needed to attack'. Then, you become a better player.

And I find the firm Gallade ruling ... declare how many prizes you flip in advance, no changing... to go right along with this. Again, its right there in the rule book as a prerequisite to your attack, "make any choices", if the wording on the card isn't enough.

Part of thinking ahead and playing clean, not stupid.
 
bulbasnore said:
Too easy to try to pull a fast one without these phases, sorry. Even out the luck vs. the 'n00bs' and all -- get a KO unnoticed when you're energy starved, conserve that needed resource for the next turn to take out the counterpuncher, etc.

Yah, I regret it hits the sloppy or tired player pretty hard (and I've been both), but you learn pretty quick to do that thing in the theme rule book 'check to see you have the energy needed to attack'. Then, you become a better player.

And I find the firm Gallade ruling ... declare how many prizes you flip in advance, no changing... to go right along with this. Again, its right there in the rule book as a prerequisite to your attack, "make any choices", if the wording on the card isn't enough.

Part of thinking ahead and playing clean, not stupid.
Click to expand...

I can understand the gallade ruling seeing as how damage calculation can make you think twice about a play just made. But if you meant to attach an energy and just in the heat of your turn forgot to place it and call an attack you CAN NOT make by all aspects of the card, then I don't think you should be forced to attack right away whether it be the attack you want or not. I don't opperate under any illusion that my sole opinion can get any ruling reversed, but it seems only fair to me. The events that take place during your turn should be allowed to be taken in any order. To me this attacking when you don't have proper energy is just like if someone played a supporter, tried to play another(but was stopped) and was told to discard the second supporter and their turn ends. The gameplay mistake is the same, They COULD NOT do something based on the wording of their cards. Yet they're allowed to return the incorrectly played supporter to their hand. It just doesn't seem fair that one way is allowed to be taken back and the other isn't.
 
Yes during your turn you are allowed to do the events that you can, except for drawing a card, as this signifies the start of your turn, and attacking, which signifies the end of your turn. Once you announce yoru attack that means you are ending your turn. But if you have an illegal attack that would leave you with 2 options - end your turn or pick a different attack.
 
PokeDaddy said:
Or ask permission of your opponnt to go back into the middle step of your turn......
Click to expand...

Yes but i was trying to give an example of how the rule could have come about or if the rule was not in place. Sorry for the confusion everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top