Smeargle force a look at opponent's hand?

[OldAmber]

This is in the Compendium:

Q. If I use Smeargle's "Portrait" Poke-POWER and find "Engineer's Adjustments" in my opponent's hand, do I have to use it if I have an Energy card in my hand?
A. Yes, if you have an energy card and you choose Engineer's Adjustments, you have to discard the energy and draw 4 cards. (Dec 9, 2010 PUI Rules Team; Mar 17, 2011 PUI Rules Team)

The hand is private information. How can you prove you do not have an energy other than showing your hand to your opponent? The Roast Reveal / Power Spray was easy, just show the energy that you were about to use so that you were not accused of drawing out the opponent's Power Spray. This is different because you have to prove you do NOT have the card.

How should I judge this?

 

[PokePop]

Luckily, this is a judge question, not a rules question, so I get to boot it to the Cards forum.

Signed -
Wimpy McWimpmeister.

 

[pokeMATHter]

This is in the Compendium:

Q. If I use Smeargle's "Portrait" Poke-POWER and find "Engineer's Adjustments" in my opponent's hand, do I have to use it if I have an Energy card in my hand?
A. Yes, if you have an energy card and you choose Engineer's Adjustments, you have to discard the energy and draw 4 cards. (Dec 9, 2010 PUI Rules Team; Mar 17, 2011 PUI Rules Team)

The hand is private information. How can you prove you do not have an energy other than showing your hand to your opponent? The Roast Reveal / Power Spray was easy, just show the energy that you were about to use so that you were not accused of drawing out the opponent's Power Spray. This is different because you have to prove you do NOT have the card.

How should I judge this?

A judge can always look in either player's hand. If a player claims to not have an energy to use Engineer's adjustment, a judge may be called over to verify.

Same with Roast Reveal/Power Spray. You don't have to show the card you were going to discard, but the Power Spray player is welcome to call a judge to verify that you have the energy. (If you don't have the energy, expect to receive a penalty!)

 

[sdrawkcab]

A judge can always look in either player's hand. If a player claims to not have an energy to use Engineer's adjustment, a judge may be called over to verify.

Same with Roast Reveal/Power Spray. You don't have to show the card you were going to discard, but the Power Spray player is welcome to call a judge to verify that you have the energy. (If you don't have the energy, expect to receive a penalty!)

Exactly what I said in the PM :thumb:

 

[OldAmber]

Of all the replies I like PokePop's best. Not often I see him sign "Wimpy McWimpmeister".

As I responded to sdrakcab's PM, I figured this was the only solution, but there are people out there who play rules rather than cards as well as people that are not genuine about their adherence to the rules when no one knows what is in their hand -- and I hate hovering, repeated call backs and accusations of lawyering (and the threats of penalties when the #1 rule is "have fun). I was hoping beyond hope for an elegant solution. Don't see any other option.

Thanks guys!

 

[Otaku]

Not to make things worse, but why isn't it flat out obvious that if you use Portrait, encounter a Supporter that you can't meet the prerequisites to play, that you must show your opponent your hand to prove it? How is this any different than having to show your hand when you mulligan to prove you just didn't have a Pokemon you didn't want to start with?

I just assumed it was part of the risk of an effect like Smeargle. Yes Pokemon cards regularly have reminder texts to make these kinds of things obvious (like when using a non-general search card, having to show the card to prove you searched out the correct type), but if I use a search card that states I must add something to my hand unless that something isn't in my deck, don't I have to then show my opponent my deck to prove the target wasn't in there at all?

Did I miss when these things shifted over to exclusively the judge's domain?

 

[sdrawkcab]

Not to make things worse, but why isn't it flat out obvious that if you use Portrait, encounter a Supporter that you can't meet the prerequisites to play, that you must show your opponent your hand to prove it? How is this any different than having to show your hand when you mulligan to prove you just didn't have a Pokemon you didn't want to start with?

I just assumed it was part of the risk of an effect like Smeargle. Yes Pokemon cards regularly have reminder texts to make these kinds of things obvious (like when using a non-general search card, having to show the card to prove you searched out the correct type), but if I use a search card that states I must add something to my hand unless that something isn't in my deck, don't I have to then show my opponent my deck to prove the target wasn't in there at all?

Did I miss when these things shifted over to exclusively the judge's domain?

Unlike mulligans where you would get a new hand, you'd be stuck with your hand. Giving your opponent a huge advantage, knowing what you'll be able to do.

I'm also not aware of any situation where you MUST take a specific card from your deck into your hand. Look at pokemon communication, even tho you just put a pokemon in the deck, the deck is still considered private and you can fail the search.

 

[Otaku]

Unlike mulligans where you would get a new hand, you'd be stuck with your hand. Giving your opponent a huge advantage, knowing what you'll be able to do.

1. Showing your hand during opening still risks telling your opponent what kind of deck you're playing and what to expect.
2. You explain why it would be bad to be in this situation, not why the rules would prevent it.

I'm also not aware of any situation where you MUST take a specific card from your deck into your hand. Look at pokemon communication, even tho you just put a pokemon in the deck, the deck is still considered private and you can fail the search.

Now you get to explain to me how that ruling is correct. :thumb: No, really, I looked it up so I know you relayed the ruling to me accurately. I just do not understand how it is correct. The exact content of my deck is not public knowledge, but

1. It is public knowledge that I just added a Pokemon into my deck
2. The card does not make the search seem optional.

Is the wording in Japanese different, so that the rest of the effect is optional? I don't exactly trust the wording of the card reading it with a questioning mind. The phrase "If you do" makes it sound like you could play Pokemon Communication from your hand, and if you had no Pokemon in hand, then you couldn't search since you didn't reveal, but you did successfully use up a card from your hand (which we know is important for certain effects).

Otherwise, the reason you brought it up was to demonstrate you didn't "have" to add a card to your hand and I'll be honest, I was under the impression that you are always to do as much as you can of a required effect. If the searching and adding to hand of effects like Dual Ball, Poke Ball and Pokemon Communication do not require you do as much of their effects as possible, then the English text does an inadequate job. Notice that Pokemon Collector states "up to", so I understand why you could play a Pokemon Collector and choose to take no Pokemon from your deck.

Granted, I've questioned the "deck contents are magically unknown" rulings for a while now, and this is a big part of it: now I've got a bigger mess comprehending the rules, with apparent inconsistencies.

Also, just because I am finding the tone of my own wording... ambiguous, I actually expect someone will be able to explain this to me, but I do allow that this was an incorrect ruling as well. I mean, it's happened before. I won't forget the original Pure Body ruling. :lol:

 

[sdrawkcab]

1. Showing your hand during opening still risks telling your opponent what kind of deck you're playing and what to expect.
2. You explain why it would be bad to be in this situation, not why the rules would prevent it.

True, it's still a disadvantage but at least they don't know the content of your next hand =P

Also true I can't explain why the rules are that way, just as I can't explain why there isn't a disadvantage to going first.

1. It is public knowledge that I just added a Pokemon into my deck
2. The card does not make the search seem optional.

You and your opponent both know you put a pokemon into your deck. The game however doesn't have a memory, it doesn't keep track of the decks contents, just if there is a deck or not and how many cards are in it.

Once again I can't explain particularly why that is, just that it is...and I feel it makes sense.
3

Is the wording in Japanese different, so that the rest of the effect is optional? I don't exactly trust the wording of the card reading it with a questioning mind. The phrase "If you do" makes it sound like you could play Pokemon Communication from your hand, and if you had no Pokemon in hand, then you couldn't search since you didn't reveal, but you did successfully use up a card from your hand (which we know is important for certain effects).

Otherwise, the reason you brought it up was to demonstrate you didn't "have" to add a card to your hand and I'll be honest, I was under the impression that you are always to do as much as you can of a required effect. If the searching and adding to hand of effects like Dual Ball, Poke Ball and Pokemon Communication do not require you do as much of their effects as possible, then the English text does an inadequate job. Notice that Pokemon Collector states "up to", so I understand why you could play a Pokemon Collector and choose to take no Pokemon from your deck.

I see "if you do" simply as an emphasis that you can't search the deck without returning a pokemon. Without the phrase it'd be assumed that putting a card in the deck and searching the deck for the card were individual effects of the cards. As far as playing communication without a pokemon in hand, we already know that you can't play a card without any effect.

As far as I know the "you are always to do as much as you can of a required effect" applies to pokemon attacks, which is why so many of them also specify "if you don't this attack does nothing."


Hopefully that helps explain things =p

 

[psychup2034]

You and your opponent both know you put a pokemon into your deck. The game however doesn't have a memory, it doesn't keep track of the decks contents, just if there is a deck or not and how many cards are in it.

Once again I can't explain particularly why that is, just that it is...and I feel it makes sense.

The reason why the game doesn’t have a memory of what’s in your deck is very simple. There are many game actions that reveal what was put into a deck, and over the course of a game (or a tournament!), always keeping track of exactly what went into a deck in a timely fashion is close to impossible. Even if there was a camera recording the game, one would still have to rewind the tape to figure out exactly what went into the deck.

Therefore, it is more convenient and more prudent for the game to immediately “forget” what was put into a deck to avoid the following types of situations:

A: “I’m going to fail this Dual Ball.”
B: “No! On the very first turn of the game, I used Portrait and saw that you had 3 Mudkips in your hand, and there are only 2 Mudkips in your discard pile. I used Looker’s Investigation last turn so I know that you didn’t have a Mudkip in your hand last turn. I know that you drew a Dual Ball this turn because you immediately played it down. Therefore, I know you have a 3rd Mudkip in your deck and you can’t fail this Dual Ball!”
A: “Dude…”
B: “Let’s call over a Judge.”
​

There is no reasonable way to verify the claims of player B, even though he may be telling the truth. Moreover, even if player B isn’t intentionally lying, he may have forgotten exactly what went into a deck throughout the game.

Thus, we have this amazing rule where the game immediately “forgets” about a card as soon as it goes back into the deck, saving everyone time and frustration.

 

[sdrawkcab]

For a longer term, that makes perfect sense.

Once an action is completed it makes sense to forget it, however why would the game forget an action that has taken place as part of a card effect.

The game should know that you just put a pokemon in your deck if you are in the process of playing a communication.

 

[psychup2034]

For a longer term, that makes perfect sense.

Once an action is completed it makes sense to forget it, however why would the game forget an action that has taken place as part of a card effect.

The game should know that you just put a pokemon in your deck if you are in the process of playing a communication.

Well, I was just giving the explanation for the rule...

The definition of what exactly is a "longer term" leads to a slippery slope. If the game should remember that you shuffled a Pokemon into your deck for Pokemon Communication, what else should it remember?

Should it remember that you played a Super Rod earlier this turn?

Should it remember that you played a Super Rod last turn?

Should it remember what was in your opponent's hand last turn?

Should it remember what was in your opponent's hand at the beginning of the game?​

I'm not saying here that it is always intuitive for the game to forget that a Pokemon was shuffled back into the deck immediately after it happens. All I'm saying is that there's a reasonable justification for why this meta-rule is in place. It may not necessarily make sense in every situation, but in my opinion, having a general rule for what happens when a Pokemon is shuffled into the deck is less confusing than having a set of situational rules.

 

[Otaku]

I don't want situational rules... but I want ones that make sense. Look what just happened: this rules question only came up because of this "notion" that "the game has no memory!"

So now instead of the obvious (can't perform forced effect leads to proving one can't do forced effect in simple manner), now we have to call over a judge. Most of the examples psychup2034 cited make the game more complex because when you view the whole game they are situational rules! Counter-intuitive to logic. Quite frankly I am wondering how we can have overarching rules about "maintaining the game state" and then claim the game has no memory. It certainly has memory when I use a once-per-turn Ability!

This is just a bad ruling that is finally catching up with us. If an effect isn't optional, it is mandatory. That's 1+1=2 logic. In this case, the game forgets what it is doing as it does it!

If I use an effect that does not state it is optional (e.g. Search your deck, reveal it to your opponent, and add a card to your hand) and you find that you can't, you should have to show your opponent to verify it. It doesn't matter that it inconveniences the player running it. If you don't know for certain a target is in your deck and you don't want to have to show your opponent your deck... don't play the card!

Some cards might still be able to play for no effect, provided they can fail. The downside balancing this out is... oh yeah, proving that it failed by showing the appropriate "secret" resource to your opponent. If you really need to burn four copies of Dual Ball to shrink your hand, unless you get double Tails sometime, expect your opponent to half memorize what's left in your deck.

 

[psychup2034]

If I use an effect that does not state it is optional (e.g. Search your deck, reveal it to your opponent, and add a card to your hand) and you find that you can't, you should have to show your opponent to verify it. It doesn't matter that it inconveniences the player running it. If you don't know for certain a target is in your deck and you don't want to have to show your opponent your deck... don't play the card!.

This is just silly. I don't know what other way to put it.

So if I use a Level Ball before I use Professor Juniper in hopes of getting an Eelektrik, but all my Eelektriks turn out to be prized, I'd be forced to take something like a Shaymin (which I might need later) or else I'd have to show my whole deck to my opponent? That's completely ridiculous.

Think of the game "forgetting" what you put back into the deck as the lesser of two evils. If you think fail searching isn't fair (in actuality, it is fair if it's a meta rule), then how is being forced to reveal your whole deck to your opponent fair?

 

[tutti]

The Game does have memory. It's just that it's much more like a computer's memory than a human's. Much like a computer, The Game doesn't commit to memory everything that happens and everything it sees; it only stores what its program, in this case the rules, tells it to. And the rules instruct The Game to instantly forget anything that goes into a deck.

Also, The Game should not be confused with the game that is Pokémon TCG, or the game of Pokémon TCG you may be playing at any given time. The Game is an abstract construct apart from these, that was for whatever reason given the same name, and loaded with functions that seem to give it a notion of reasoning and conscious thought. In actuality, it's nothing more than an imagined memory bank with some rudimentary calculative abilities.

...or at least, that's how I understand it.

 

[Otaku]

This is just silly. I don't know what other way to put it.

So if I use a Level Ball before I use Professor Juniper in hopes of getting an Eelektrik, but all my Eelektriks turn out to be prized, I'd be forced to take something like a Shaymin (which I might need later) or else I'd have to show my whole deck to my opponent? That's completely ridiculous.

No, that's part of the drawback to playing those cards.

Think of the game "forgetting" what you put back into the deck as the lesser of two evils. If you think fail searching isn't fair (in actuality, it is fair if it's a meta rule), then how is being forced to reveal your whole deck to your opponent fair?

Just like it was fair that Rainbow Energy for a brief time counted as a Water Energy in hand with respect to Pure Body (a Poke-Body on Aquapolis Suicune) but not for Rain Dance? Sometimes rules are wrong.

Let em get this straight: I am to do confusing things that contradict reason because you are worried about having to occasionally show your opponent your deck because you forgot you were out of what you were searching for, or you took the risk of using a search card when you didn't know the contents of your deck and there was the possibility you might come up dry?

Like I said, you're running the card with the risk, so it's fair.

tutti: So... the programmer did a bad job? I mean, this is like the computer saving a Word Document and when you open it, the letter "e" has been dropped any place it appeared. We are in the middle of the card's effect!

 

[psychup2034]

Like I said, you're running the card with the risk, so it's fair.

Right. So how is the game immediately forgetting what goes into the deck not fair if it applies to all players?

I agree with you that failsearching while using Pokemon Communication isn't very intuitive. However, in the larger scheme of things, it makes sense that the game would immediately "forget" what does into a deck. Thus, from a meta perspective, the ruling makes a lot of sense.

The Game does have memory. It's just that it's much more like a computer's memory than a human's. Much like a computer, The Game doesn't commit to memory everything that happens and everything it sees; it only stores what its program, in this case the rules, tells it to. And the rules instruct The Game to instantly forget anything that goes into a deck.

Nicely worded. :lol:

 

[tutti]

So... the programmer did a bad job? I mean, this is like the computer saving a Word Document and when you open it, the letter "e" has been dropped any place it appeared. We are in the middle of the card's effect!

No, now you're back to the problem with the lesser of two evils. Having to show your entire deck, or alternatively taking something you really don't want to take, can be a large issue for a player. Being able to fail a deck search can only be a large issue for anyone in extremely fringe cases.

Also, no, this is nothing like a Word document at all. This is a game, anything saved essentially works out to more instructions for the computer to follow. A Word document is an amount of text. The two are not related whatsoever.

 

[megatron]

I would not play this game if I had to show my deck to my opponent every time I failed a Level Ball.

 

[vaporeon]

You should be able to fail the effect because the hand is not public knowledge. This can be a real issue really. I started playing Engineer's Adjustments and Smeargle has really picked up in my area so any way to solve this would be nice.