Shaw's "Bringdown" Question in ATM

Discussion in 'Cards: Strategy and Rulings Discussion' started by meganium45, Jan 18, 2008.

8 league13 468 60
  1. meganium45

    meganium45 Active Member

    OK, since there is no answered ruling on this question as of yet, and in reading Jimmer's response to the original question, it was not clear, except that he would rewind the steps, I thought I would give perspective on how I am ruling this call, and have someone disagree with me. If Jimmer tells me I am preparing to do it wrong, or one of the powers that be disagree with me, then I will change my perspective.

    Situation, my opponent calls "Bringdown" the Ralts with a Gardevoir Lvl X having 3 psychic energy attached.

    Bringdown is the attack on Gardevoir LVL X that knocks out the pokemon with the least hit points remaining in play, excluding Gardevoir Lvl X.

    My opponent points to my Ralts (60HP remaining) as he states this.

    I point out to my opponent that he has a ralts with 3 damage counters on it, and that Pokemon is knocked out.

    My opponent then says "whoa, that's not what I meant", and calls a judge over.

    The correct ruling in my gym is that my opponent called an attack with Gardevoir..

    He said "Bringdown" which was a legitimate attack that he had the energy for.

    He then incorrectly targeted a Pokemon with the attack - "that Ralts" or "your Ralts"
    He had a pokemon with less hit points, and therefore that pokemon is knocked out, I take a prize, and my turn begins.

    This is NOT this situation where he calls an attack with insufficient energy, or being unable to attack (Disable). He called an attack that he had the energy, and the ability to do.

    The attack is called "Bring Down" - he called it. That is the decision he made.

    The whole idea of a "Junior Mistake" really does not come into play here. This is a "big boy" card, and the player should be aware of what it does.

    My decision on this does not change if he said "Bring down the Absol" when his Ralts had less HP, the Ralts still falls.

    My decision may change if he said - Bring Down, pointed to my active and said - 60 damage, no powers, if I had disabled his bring down attack. (he really, and obviously meant the other Garde attack, and could not use bring down)

  2. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

    As a heads up, we literally spent the entire Rules Team meeting yesterday discussing this and related rulings.
    Bottom line, we want to be sure that we are in line with how Japan wishes the card to be played and so we are requesting their input on the scenario.
  3. meganium45

    meganium45 Active Member

    The ruling will be interesting, in that the repercussions will affect the way we handle the "attack phase"

  4. TheDarkTwins

    TheDarkTwins Active Member

    I think once you say bring down that is it. If you made a mistake oh well. I have done that once, and after you do it once to yourself, you never ever do it again. I think that is the correct way to rule it.

  5. PokePop

    PokePop Administrator

  6. MrMeches

    MrMeches New Member

    IMHO Vince, it is a misplay on the "Owner" of the Lv X and the player did not verify the ENTIRE GAME STATE before announcing the attack. I agree with you in that it was a LEGAL Attack made and does not get the rewind opportunity. Unfortunately, it is an error on the player as you dicussed and not the game state.

    However, it would be interesting under Spirit of the Game if the opponent is given the opportunity to allow the rewind (highly doubt it would happen, but could/should it if the opponent agrees?) and deicdes that it is ok with them (They don't play powers so the "Lock" is irrevelant and they might be able to get a KO on the Lv. X next turn with their Active leaving a lone Ralts wiht 3 Counters on it and no/small hand)

    Interesting indeed to hear form Japan on this one!

    ~Prof Fish~
  7. I made the same mistake, Game 3 T4- Miami CC... gave my oppoent a free ride into T2...

    You say the attack, you can legally use it, sorry, you used it.
  8. totoro

    totoro Active Member

    I really hope that we hear definitively on this before States. This really requires a consistent ruling regardless of where you play, since I see this happening, oh, at a couple of States....
  9. Prof Clay

    Prof Clay New Member

    Unless another ruling is handed down, this is how it will be ruled at Tennessee states. A player should be aware of the game state at all times. A mistaken target for a legal attack will only be rewindable for me if the opposing player allows it to be rewound.

    There is no misplay here only a failure to recognize what would be the ramifications of performing the attack.
  10. ninetales1234

    ninetales1234 <a href="

    This Gardevoir lx card sure is troublesome (as far as playing it goes, the rulings don't seem to be any trouble at all)! I don't ever intend to play it. Such a gamble this card is, when you can knock out your own dudes...

    I agree with M45. You don't pick a target for the attack; the attack picks it for you (exception of course, when Pokemon have equal HP).
  11. Scizor

    Scizor New Member

    Inadvertenly pointing or calling a wrong pokemon name can easily happen after you announce something like Bring Down and begin to draw your prize. You announced the attack, you can do it and what ever pokemon on the opponent's field with the least amount of HP is KOd. That's how I see it at least.
  12. Prime

    Prime Content Developer<br>Blog Admin<br>Contest Host

    The only time you actually get a choice in the matter is when there are two or more pokemon with the same amount of HP left. Every time else, it is out of your control. if they meant the other attack? Ask your opponent to take it back and hope for the 0.0001% chance that they let you.
  13. Bolt

    Bolt New Member

    what I didn't get from reading Jimmer's response is, why wouldn't "I'll bring down the Ralts" be a valid statement? The player has enough energy to Bring Down and once they say they're going to bring something down, that's the attack and then they must choose the Pokemon with the lowest HP to KO.
  14. SPARTA

    SPARTA New Member

    Honestly, the information they give after an attack that has a defined target means nothing, its basically said for clarity. Otherwise a player using G&G could say "I use Psychic Cut on your benched Magmortar" and do it. If a persn declares they are using Bring Down, they have used Bring Down, and must go through with all step of it, including checking for the pokemon with the lowest HP, knocking it out, and having the appropriate player draw a prize. Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see the problem.
  15. ShadowTogetic

    ShadowTogetic New Member

    An instance where you can't use Bring Down would be if you don't have sufficient energy attached. Have enough energy for Bring Down? Said Bring Down? Yes to both, so KO the Pokemon with the lowest HP, whether it be your's or your opponent's. It's the Gardy player's fault for not looking at the play area.
  16. Lawman

    Lawman Active Member

    The part I bolded is incorrect. You bring down the lowest remaining HP Poke on either side, except the active lvl X attacking. This is where part of the error comes into play, not truly understanding the card and its attack.

    Now, Chad may have mistyped this and knows the proper way to play the card (not an intential dig Chad), he just typed it up the way many players THINK this card works.

    I agree with Vince on this....this is not a rewind situation. A legal attack was announced with enough enrgy and the result hits, unless the oppo allows the takeback.

  17. Regis_Neo

    Regis_Neo Moderator

    The way I see it, the opponent probably didn't fully understand that Bring Down will KO whatever Pokemon is in play with the least remaining HP in play, not just the opponent's Pokemon. So yeah, he called out the attack, mistakenly thought it applied to only your Pokemon, and thus wound up KOing his instead. So yeah, once he called out the attack that was pretty much it since it has a target.
  18. NoPoke

    NoPoke New Member

    Vince, I don't think there are any 'Big Boy cards' in this game. ie reserved for experienced players. We shouldn't base any decision upon such an idea. That said, If I was convinced that a correctly energied attack was called then it stands. If there is ambiguity then I would want the ambiguity resolved. In this case if a player were to say 'Bring down the Ralts' and there is a Ralts that can be correctly knocked out then it is hard to see that there is any ambiguity to be resolved.

    In the case of 'Bring down the Absol' there is some ambiguity. In my mind if an opponent wants to take advantage of this ambiguity then they have to have made some attempt to resolve such ambiguity and not rules-lawyer an easy prize. We aren't playing 'Simon Says'

    The case is similar to using Sneasel EX and calling out 'Drag off the Wobuffet' . I don't think it was rulled as fizzle, not that I can find the rulling.


    To all those who think they know what the player intended be carefull. None of us are mind readers. It is much better to base rullings on what you know and can determine rather than what you think a player believes. The only time we have to worry about intent is really to determine if cheating is taking place.
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2008
  19. DreamChaser AJ

    DreamChaser AJ New Member

    So what if the player just points to his opponent's ralts on the bench and says "I'll knock out the ralts."? The player didn't announce that specific attack. Could the player rewind then?
  20. DarthPika

    DarthPika New Member

    How I see it is that there is flawed logic in saying that jimmer "picked ralts". The thing is YOU don't chose which pkmn on the feild is KO'd, unless there are 2 with the same amount of hp. The attack already "picks" the pokemon thats ko'd, and pointing to the wrong pkmn dosn't change anything as you MUST follow the text of the card.
    I would think that, that would be where his/her opponent got to decide if they could take it back or not.

Share This Page