Psychic Cut and declaring the # of prizes

[ShadowCard]

I can't find the ruling on Psychic Cut and not declaring the number of prizes to be flipped. What is the standard fix for these cases?

The player says "Psychic Cut" and starts flipping prize cards. Does the player have to flip all prizes and do max damage, or are no prizes flipped and the min damage done instead and the prize cards that were flipped are turned back face-down?

The player says "Psychic Cut for 110 damage" without declaring the number of prizes to be flipped. However, no effects in play make that a correct amount of damage. A calculation error caused the incorrect damage declaration. Does the player get to go back and decide how many prizes they want to flip? Are 3 prizes flipped for a total of 120 damage since that would be the number of prizes necessary to get to 110 damage? Would they do min damage and not get to flip any prizes? Would they do max damage and flip all prizes?

[2P] Psychic Cut (60+) You may choose as many of your face-down Prize cards as you like and put them face up. If you do, this attack does 60 damage plus 20 more damage for each Prize card you choose. (These cards remain face up for the rest of the game.)

 

[PokePop]

The proper way to play it is for them to declare how many prizes they are flipping.
What to do if they do it wrong... that's the tricky part.

 

[ShadowCard]

The proper way to play it is for them to declare how many prizes they are flipping.
What to do if they do it wrong... that's the tricky part.

Yes. For playing it the "proper way," that ship has sailed here. I'm asking about the fix.

PokePop, I saw in an ATM thread that you mentioned that the fix may vary. I thought there was a standard fix for atleast one of the cases I mentioned in my OP.

 

[PokePop]

We'll see if we can publish a standard ruling for it.

For the record, my ruling is that they flip zero prizes.

I do that for two reasons.
First, it's the default.
Second, if I force them to flip all of the prizes, then I have irreversibly altered the potential damage that attack can do for the rest of the game.
I see that as a severe outcome.

 

[ninetales1234]

We'll see if we can publish a standard ruling for it.

For the record, my ruling is that they flip zero prizes.

A flaw this ruling is that if one prize is flipped over, (and then the judge turns it back face-down) the player saw one of the cards in his prizes. What would you do to address this?

 

[hectagonman]

I would guess that they shuffle up the prizes.

 

[PokePop]

A flaw this ruling is that if one prize is flipped over, (and then the judge turns it back face-down) the player saw one of the cards in his prizes. What would you do to address this?

The game state is a mess. I don't expect to turn back time.
One does the best they can.

 

[ShadowCard]

I would just shuffle the prizes. No penalty greater than warning required.


I thought the fix would be to flip all prizes based on the rule about drawing cards, saying that not declaring an amount prior to drawing means you then draw the max amount. So, not declaring how many prizes you will be flipping means you are going to flip them all. It seemed consistent when I thought about what situations could be similar.

I like PokePop's reasoning though. By saying to flip all, would I be doing more damage than fix?

 

[Lawman]

^At one time, there was a split it seems between different areas and judges on how this would be ruled. It was determined at Nats I believe that it would be no prizes flipped (a cleaner "fix") if the player didnt announce the number of prizes to flip or simply starting flipping one at a time.

Keith

 

[Varna]

Well, while I was in GA, I had this happen to me. I started flipping prizes, but I was called on it, and it was ruled that since I didn't declare how many beforehand, I had made the commitment to only flip 1. The judge flipped the other 2 I had flipped over back down and shuffled them with the other face down prizes. I was told that was what had been ruled in previous years.

 

[DukeFireBird]

The way most judges would rule is that if you flipped at least 1 prize, without declaring how many, you then decided on flipping 1, no matter if you continued to flip or not.

The best way to avoid ANY confusion is to go "Psychic Cut, flipping X prizes for X damage" be warned though, the number of prizes is the factor, and not the damage because there could be modifiers (weakness/resistance/powers/bodies/tools) that alter the final damage that the player attacking is not taking into account.

 

[yoyofsho16]

The way most judges would rule is that if you flipped at least 1 prize, without declaring how many, you then decided on flipping 1, no matter if you continued to flip or not.

The best way to avoid ANY confusion is to go "Psychic Cut, flipping X prizes for X damage" be warned though, the number of prizes is the factor, and not the damage because there could be modifiers (weakness/resistance/powers/bodies/tools) that alter the final damage that the player attacking is not taking into account.

Nice point. To you and Varna.

Flipping none would be incorrect.

 

[PokePop]

Nice point. To you and Varna.

Flipping none would be incorrect.

^At one time, there was a split it seems between different areas and judges on how this would be ruled. It was determined at Nats I believe that it would be no prizes flipped (a cleaner "fix") if the player didnt announce the number of prizes to flip or simply starting flipping one at a time.

Keith

So, you're saying the top judges in the country got together at Nationals and the way they decided to rule it is "incorrect"?

 

[ShadowCard]

I've never heard of a "committing to flip 1" ruling before.

So, you're saying the top judges in the country got together at Nationals and the way they decided to rule it is "incorrect"?

hold on there. Just because the ruling was favored at the time does not make it correct or incorrect. It is important to know the context or reason that the rule was decided in that way.

We shouldn't be holding who judged what events over each other. A ruling used at Nats by "the top judges in the country" does not make it a correct ruling. It was a ruling favored based on the reasoning at the time. It is possible for incorrect rulings to be favored. That is why we discuss these things.

I would be sceptical to use "flip none" if someone told me "that's the way it was done at Nats." I would need to know (or somehow figure out) why that rule was favored. Our views of cards and their interactions can change between Nats and the next year's SCs.

 

[PokePop]

I'm not the one declaring one right or wrong.
Note that when I gave my ruling, I gave it as "my ruling", not as "the one and only right ruling".

I'm objecting to someone posting their opinion as "right" and the decision of the National judges as "wrong".
I think that's the person you should be telling to "hold on there", yes?

 

[PkmnManiac]

I'd just like to find out how much damage I have to do and then state how many prizes I have to flip over.
Lets say I'm against a Beedrill (Band Attack, 110, w/o Expert Belt).
Psycho Cut does 60 damage initially. But in order to OHKO it, I need to flip over 3 prizes for 120. As, of course everybody knows, that you get an additional 20 for each flip.
So first I'd call out the attack, state that I'll flip over 3 prizes and then flip over the 3 prizes. And then damage is dealt and I end my turn.

But that's just me and I'm sure there's a flaw in there somewhere. lol

 

[Box of Fail]

If I say, "Psychic Cut for the knockout", do I commit to flip enough to cover the Defending Pokémon's HP, or is that not enough indication of how many I intend to flip?

 

[PkmnManiac]

If you say that, it's only natural (and I'm sure in the rules) that you have to "show your work" so the opponent knows how the poke was knocked out.

I know for sure I wanted to do Grind (via Tyranitar), then I have to count the number of energy attached as well as counting the Special Dark (if any).

 

[Lawman]

If I say, "Psychic Cut for the knockout", do I commit to flip enough to cover the Defending Pokémon's HP, or is that not enough indication of how many I intend to flip?

No, it is not an indication of a KO or the number of prizes to flip. The reason for this is simple. Psychic Cut is a proper atk that has a base damage of 60. Sometimes, that alone is enough to gain the KO. The verbage under the atk name says you MAY add 20 damage per prize flipped over. Damage calculation can be off. You must not get sloppy or else you could get a ruling that hurts you in that game. If you announced this at one of my events and the judge got called over, I would rule no prizes flipped, do the 60 (+/- W/R) and go on.

Keith

 

[ShadowCard]

If I say, "Psychic Cut for the knockout", do I commit to flip enough to cover the Defending Pokémon's HP, or is that not enough indication of how many I intend to flip?

At one SC I judged, we ruled that "[attack] for knock out" was not an indication of damage. Amount of damage MUST be said no matter the attack, even if it is a simple Tackle attack for 10 damage.
Like Lawman said, "for the knock out" is not an indication of the amount of prizes being flipped, so I would rule with whatever the ruling says to do when the number of prizes to be flipped is not stated.

I'm not the one declaring one right or wrong.
Note that when I gave my ruling, I gave it as "my ruling", not as "the one and only right ruling".

I'm objecting to someone posting their opinion as "right" and the decision of the National judges as "wrong".
I think that's the person you should be telling to "hold on there", yes?

What I liked about the way you presented your ruling was the explanation. That is what will be the point I push for that fix if my judging group get into discussion about this.

The "hold on there" isn't because someone posted their opinion as correct and the decision of the Nats judges as incorrect. I'm objecting to someone's reply that implied, as I read it, a decision made at Nats can't be wrong and especially if the poster wasn't on the Nats judging team, and the poster is out of line in saying that the opinion is more correct.
The sentence sounds designed to make its target(s) feel very little. If that's not the goal, then I'm sorry I got the wrong message from the reply; if that was the goal, then we're coming from different perspectives. It doesn't matter to me that an opinion is being promoted as more correct than a decision at an event even if that event is Nats. Should someone be saying their opinion is more correct? That's getting caught up in persuasive vs informative styles and I'd rather not get trapped in there.
I'm looking for why that person thinks the ruling is more correct. I want to know what support the person gives to that opinion. It is fine to say "this was the ruling at Nats" to frame the context of the ruling, but it shouldn't be used to justify the correctness of the ruling.