Shaw's "Bringdown" Question in ATM

[NoPoke]

Actually there isn't much 'wrong' with what MTJimmer said. Context is key with these situations. I don't think you will ever get a rules-lawyer like answer out of MTJimmer. So I'm not at all surprised that MTJimmers' answer was directed at the ambiguity in the way the attack was announced.

I don't see this as an opponent gets to decide issue. Players play and Judges judge. Its fine when the players resolve the ambiguity themselves but not fine when one side seeks to gain advantage from an ambiguity - that is a prime example of rules-lawyering behaviour. And like the best rules-lawyering it is subtle and thus very likely to succeed.


Aside: When I was much younger I hated English at School. No matter what I did I always received poor marks from the teachers. Back then you were likely to lose a mark for every spelling error and error in punctuation. With the maximum being 10/10 it wasn't long before even my best thought out essays were consigned to a 5/10. It put me off English for years. It may well be that such a draconian approach was right for some but it wasn't good for me or others like me. I have no issue with Vince's or other PTOs taking a firm line as they are obviously doing what is most appropriate for their environment. But that doesn't make it universally appropriate.

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

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?

Yep they didn't announce an attack properly so though they are likely to be stuck at the attack step the choice of attack has not yet been communicated. Continue with such sloppy announcements though and penalties will be incurred by the player.