Illegal attacks/steps during a turn

[vanderbilt_grad]

The person going to their first tournament might or might not be competitive. Maybe they've been playing in leagues for a long time or maybe they've just started the game that very day and literally don't know a thing about it.

All I can say for sure was that my goal when I went to my first City Tournament this year was to win one game. I was there more to learn than to compete, but I wanted a win too. I got exactly what I wanted, I learned a lot ... and I got that one win.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

The difference between attaching the wrong (legal) energy and announcing an illegal attack is quite simple.

One is a misplay that is legal.

One is a misplay that is illegal.

The attack MUST be re-wound, as it could never have happened in the first place. Just like attaching a DRE to an EX Pokemon.



This happened to me at a City:

I have a Beldum in play, and a Rare Candy and Holon Researcher in my hand. I mean to play the Researcher to search for my Metagross, and evolve it with Rare Candy. I get distracted and play the Rare Candy first. Whoops. Judge gets called. The judges ruling: I had no evolutions that could legally be played in my hand; therefor, the Rare Candy was an illegal play, and it comes back into my hand. Caution for misplay.

There is a huge (and I really mean HUGE) difference between a legal misplay, and an illegal misplay.

 

[Myn_donos]

That's the way I've always done it. If a player has 3 Energy on his/her Salamence D and announces to do 100 damage, and the opponent notices there is one Energy too few, of course the Salamence player doesn't just have to end his turn without attacking. I take it for granted that he then can use the first attack (for two Energies) instead. If any opponent ever complains to that kind of judge move made by me, I just ask the opponent: "Would it in the current situation in any possible way make sense for the Salamence player to not wish to attack? Wouldn't you attack if it was you?" and that pretty much ends the argument.

My general rule is that a Pokémon player should be ashamed of him/herself if he/she denies the opponent from doing something which it's completely obvious that he/she wants to do. Some players say "your turn" when they mean "I'm attacking". Some really awful opponents then take advantage of it and say it's too late. As a judge, I raelly think it's unacceptable to try to win by hoping your opponent will do something he/she does not intend/want to do.

at the league i attend(when i get to go) we have a ruling, you must announce your attack, if you call out an attack, if you miscall the attack, to bad, that is your attack, and you need to be more careful. If you wave your hand(SteveP :wink: ) and think that it counts for a knock out, we ask if that is your "attack" they say yes, our pokemon is not knocked out, because well, you never made an attack announcement and thus, you have passed on your attack phase. IF you announce a poke-power as your attack, well, that is totally different, because you haven't enter the attack phase, so even though you meant the attack, you have the pokepower/body you have to use, even if you didn't mean to(IF it is possible to use it) that is just how nit-picky we are. which i rather enjoy

 

[NoPoke]

Tego,

we needed the rulling from POP not because players were allowing or preventing their opponents from attacking but because JUDGES were.

 

[Rocketman]

The difference between attaching the wrong (legal) energy and announcing an illegal attack is quite simple.

One is a misplay that is legal.

One is a misplay that is illegal.

The attack MUST be re-wound, as it could never have happened in the first place. Just like attaching a DRE to an EX Pokemon.



This happened to me at a City:

I have a Beldum in play, and a Rare Candy and Holon Researcher in my hand. I mean to play the Researcher to search for my Metagross, and evolve it with Rare Candy. I get distracted and play the Rare Candy first. Whoops. Judge gets called. The judges ruling: I had no evolutions that could legally be played in my hand; therefor, the Rare Candy was an illegal play, and it comes back into my hand. Caution for misplay.

There is a huge (and I really mean HUGE) difference between a legal misplay, and an illegal misplay.

Yes there is a huge difference.
attaching a dre doesn't happen during the attack step. if you've gotten that far, it becomes a more serious penalty, because you've misplayed, then taken steps after the misplay. The severity of the penalty depends upon how many steps you've taken.
The reason re winding is done is to take the game state to the point where it is repairable. This means that all the required steps and actions can now be done. If you call an attack, and crystal beach is in play, and now you forget that you wanted to play a stadium, remember that playing a stadium is optional. So no re-wind is necessary, it is a misplay on the player's part that requires no re-wind, because it only missed an optional part of the game. If a dre is played on an EX, and an attack is called, you have not forfilled the requirement for the attack. If you play a rare candy with no evolutions you have not forfilled the requirements. These things have to be done, playing a stadium or the attachment of legal energy does not, it is optional.
So you can't compare one reason for re- winding a misplay for another. Sometimes is necessary, and sometimes it is not. That would depend on weather or not all the proper requiements of the turn were met.
That is the difference.
However, once the attack step has been called, there's no reason to end a turn if an attack requirment can be forfilled. I've never seen that happen, but I'm sure it has.
Rick

 

[Martin]

It's my license photo.. the one that's revoked.

Oh, and I find myself more attractive than Chuck. Too bad the ladies don't think so..

 

[sebastianlugo]

Mike, you're pushing this further than it really needs to go, bordering on gamesmanship.

EX Power Keepers Rulebook, pg 11:

3) ATTACK!
When you attack, you place damage counters on your opponent's Active Pokemon (also called the "Defending Pokemon"). This is the last thing you can do during your turn. You are only allowed to attack once during your turn (if your Pokemon has 2 attacks, it can only use 1 of them each turn). Say the name of the attack you are using, and then follow the rest of the steps below.

> Check to make sure you have enough Energy... <snip>

This is covered in the rulebook, Mike. I'm sorry that you don't agree with this ruling, but all of these steps are spelled out. We're only asking that players follow them.

game example, i attack with mew ex copying an attack that requieres 2 water nrgy and i have 2 fightning attached to mew ex, the attack are failes right?? in this case can choose other attack in play?? can attach an nrgy or retreat after anounces an attack???

 

[ShadowCard]

game example, i attack with mew ex copying an attack that requieres 2 water nrgy and i have 2 fightning attached to mew ex, the attack are failes right?? in this case can choose other attack in play?? can attach an nrgy or retreat after anounces an attack???

1) From my understanding, the attack doesn't fail, it didn't happen. So, anything that would trigger from an attack being made doesn't happen, like Baby Power or Sand Attack (there's probably a better example).
2) since you are now in step 3, you can choose a different attack.
3) only if your opponent allows you to go back into step 2. If the opponent isn't threatened by you and allows the take back, then yes; if your opponent is afraid of you and doesn't allow the take back, you can only choose a different attack.

 

[NoPoke]

To continue with the DRE analogy..

If I try to attach a DRE to a basic or EX the card is returned to my hand. However I'm not currently stuck with selecting a legal target for the DRE to be attached to or passing my energy attachment for the turn. There are steps within steps here I'm certain that some judge somewhere is going to rule that way using the continue to attack or pass approach that we now have as precedent.

---playing a stevens advice and I find I have the wrong number of cards in hand... I'm now in the playing a supporter step UGH! ---

 

[evil psyduck]

1) From my understanding, the attack doesn't fail, it didn't happen. So, anything that would trigger from an attack being made doesn't happen, like Baby Power or Sand Attack (there's probably a better example).
2) since you are now in step 3, you can choose a different attack.
3) only if your opponent allows you to go back into step 2. If the opponent isn't threatened by you and allows the take back, then yes; if your opponent is afraid of you and doesn't allow the take back, you can only choose a different attack.

Being threatened or afraid of your opponent has nothing to do with it. People need to pay attention to what they are doing when playing. Why can't people get that through their heads.

 

[PokePop]

At this point, we only have 3 steps: 1 (draw card), 2 (do optional things excluding attack), 3 attack. (step 0, between turn actions?)

In any event, let's not try to move the "Steps" down to letters (2a, 2b, etc)

 

[NoPoke]

PokePop, I certainly don't want to take the steps-within-steps approach but I can't fault the logic of anyone who was to argue that it *should* be that way.

POP have told us how to rule on unavailable attacks and I'll follow their rulling. I'm glad to no longer be in the grey area of not knowing what is the approved approach to this particular infraction.

 

[Prof Clay]

1) From my understanding, the attack doesn't fail, it didn't happen. So, anything that would trigger from an attack being made doesn't happen, like Baby Power or Sand Attack (there's probably a better example).
2) since you are now in step 3, you can choose a different attack.
3) only if your opponent allows you to go back into step 2. If the opponent isn't threatened by you and allows the take back, then yes; if your opponent is afraid of you and doesn't allow the take back, you can only choose a different attack.

Maybe its as simple as you made a mistake and your opponent wants to take advantage of it and NOT let you take it back. Its not his/her fault you made the error...why should they penalize themselves by allowing you to go back. It is the opposing players right to either hold you to the move you made or let you rewind no matter how they feel.

As Meganium45 said earlier..this ruling keeps your opponent from having to penalize themselves for catching their opponents error and basically telling them what they need to go back and fix

 

[dogma]

PokePop, I certainly don't want to take the steps-within-steps approach but I can't fault the logic of anyone who was to argue that it *should* be that way.

I guess I'll be the first one to argue this way then :wink: In all honesty, I don't see how a card game can function without defined steps without it becoming way too confusing. I don't see the steps (and sub-steps) to be confusing - there's loads of things that can be done pre-attack for instance, and obviously, it should stay that way.

But there is no reason why experts of the game (i.e. most of the people who would read and post on this thread) cannot follow the steps. It increases clarity and everyone knows what should be done when. Where are the downsides?

EDIT: I'm going to wait to see if anyone compares what I'm saying to M:TG before making the rest of my point

 

[Ditto]

To continue with the DRE analogy..

If I try to attach a DRE to a basic or EX the card is returned to my hand. However I'm not currently stuck with selecting a legal target for the DRE to be attached to or passing my energy attachment for the turn. There are steps within steps here I'm certain that some judge somewhere is going to rule that way using the continue to attack or pass approach that we now have as precedent.

---playing a stevens advice and I find I have the wrong number of cards in hand... I'm now in the playing a supporter step UGH! ---

The difference comes with how the Steps are listed. Draw, Step 2, and Attack Steps are all numbered while the things you can do in Step 2 are bulleted. Thus the parts of Step 2 can be done in any order (I believe the rule book actually specifically states this too). Since the things you can do in Step 2 aren't numbered, they aren't actually Steps, so they don't have their own little "phase" to rewind back to the beginning of. Instead, you rewind back to the beginning of that iteration of Step 2 and continue from there.

NOTE: I really don't mean to look like I'm always picking on you NoPoke, cause I'm not. You just bring up the best points for discussion and the most detailed examples, so it's easiest for me to get a point across by using your examples. Sorry.

 

[NoPoke]

yes Ditto you can do them in any order. But having started to play a DRE, even attaching it and letting go, why should you not have to play it as long as there is a card it can be legally attached too? Its just as much the players mistake if they do the allowed step 2 actions in the wrong order.

So I wasn't suggesting following the bullets in order but rather suggesting that having started one of the bulleted items, why should I not have to complete it if it is possible.

 

[Ditto]

yes Ditto you can do them in any order. But having started to play a DRE, even attaching it and letting go, why should you not have to play it as long as there is a card it can be legally attached too? Its just as much the players mistake if they do the allowed step 2 actions in the wrong order.

So I wasn't suggesting following the bullets in order but rather suggesting that having started one of the bulleted items, why should I not have to complete it if it is possible.

Because the actions in Step 2 are not Steps themselves, so they don't have a "start" to them. So there isn't a way to rewind to the "start" of the "Energy Attachment Step" since there is no "Energy Attachment Step" in the first place. It's just something you do, you either did it or you didn't do it, it is an instantaneous action.

 

[spartan-104]

i think ditto hates you no poke

BEEF

anyway i think thats kinda lame that the ruling is "if your opponent lets you take it back" idk make a definitive ruling ;P

thanks for clearing up the gray i guess

 

[ColdCoates90]

i think ditto hates you no poke

BEEF

anyway i think thats kinda lame that the ruling is "if your opponent lets you take it back" idk make a definitive ruling ;P

thanks for clearing up the gray i guess

The ruling IS definitive, similar to energy attachments. If your opponent lets you take it back, you can take it back,but otherwise the energy WAS played and must stay.

 

[NoPoke]

I'm really glad that we have a rulling on this. It matters little if I agree or disagree with it. Consensus even an imposed one is better than what we had before.

The term steps may not be used but there is still sequencing, order and flow to what is described. Times' arrow is still there.

----------------
No I don't think that Ditto hates me! LOL. Ditto puts time and effort into his/her?? posts and that is good enough for me. The world would be a very boring place if we all agreed all the time.