Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

The implications of voluntary failure in a deck search.

If all four evolution cards are visible to the game I've always ruled that you can't Wally the active. At all times your deck contains any mix of legal cards that the game rules and current state permit. So under exceptional circumstances you may not be able to play a Wally's Training Method . (in unlimited ;) )

I'm not sure I agree. For example, you could have 3 swampert in play with a 4th in the discard, with a marshtop active. You could have a Swampert EX in the deck - The Game doesn't know.
 
If all four evolution cards are visible to the game I've always ruled that you can't Wally the active. At all times your deck contains any mix of legal cards that the game rules and current state permit. So under exceptional circumstances you may not be able to play a Wally's Training Method . (in unlimited ;) )

..or Wally a Pokemon that doesn't evolve.
 
If all four evolution cards are visible to the game I've always ruled that you can't Wally the active.

Interesting edge case.

To illustrate, for example, there are 3 Beedrill in play, one exposed to the game in a flipped over prize (e.g. via Island Hermit, Team Rocket Returns). It's important to note that Beedrill is a Pokémon with no EX form :mad:. Of course, you'd have to have a Pokémon you could evolve to Beedrill active, i.e. the big Kakuna.

Here's a ruling that tries to trip up the 'no process of logic applies to the contents of your deck' type of discussions that we've had around the 'voluntary fail of a specific deck search' issue:

Compendium EX said:
Q. Can I use Wally's Training on a Mewtwo to search my deck, even though there is no evolution of Mewtwo?
A. No, there has to at least be the possibility of a valid evolution in order to use this card. Sorry. (Jan 22, 2004 PUI Rules Team)

Can we say there is a possibilty of a valid evolution to Kakuna, strictly speaking, yes. So, what trumps in this case? I can see several ways to approach it. Fun!

You always rule this way, do you? :wink:
 
Interesting edge case.

To illustrate, for example, there are 3 Beedrill in play, one exposed to the game in a flipped over prize (e.g. via Island Hermit, Team Rocket Returns). It's important to note that Beedrill is a Pokémon with no EX form :mad:. Of course, you'd have to have a Pokémon you could evolve to Beedrill active, i.e. the big Kakuna.

Here's a ruling that tries to trip up the 'no process of logic applies to the contents of your deck' type of discussions that we've had around the 'voluntary fail of a specific deck search' issue:



Can we say there is a possibilty of a valid evolution to Kakuna, strictly speaking, yes. So, what trumps in this case? I can see several ways to approach it. Fun!


The game has no memory. The game sees that the exposed card is a Beedrill, is an evolution card (even though there is currently no card that references an exposed evolution card in a prize pool) but when it checks the qualifications for the Wally's it has forgotten that the Beedrill is exposed. Correct?
 
Sweet ruling.. Though it just seems like common sense to me, after all nearly every single effect says 'may' as in optional...

I've been dying to say this since reading that:

Bulbasnore, you FAIL (Voluntarily), but in a good way xD
 
I don't think this thread helps much, describe certain search's can be optional.

What is implied in the Professor Elm discussion is one would need to declare what they are searching for FIRST for the Delcaty EX. It is a bit confusing.


DO THINGS QUICKLY, this should be the only thing the judges watch. A slow Shuffle during these actions, a judge's should say "TIME EXTENTION" during the prolong shuffle.

I can handle a player making legal plays, or thinking about his turn, but Slow Execution or Slow Shuffle with little time left, that is something that Burns me.
 
The game has no memory. The game sees that the exposed card is a Beedrill, is an evolution card (even though there is currently no card that references an exposed evolution card in a prize pool) but when it checks the qualifications for the Wally's it has forgotten that the Beedrill is exposed. Correct?

It has no memory, but I would think that it can see what it can see at that moment, and if all 4 Beedrill are visible, then I think I'd rule that the search can't be done.
As 'snore says, an interesting edge case that we'll see if we can get PCL input on.
 
Thanks, game changing,

Anyways does this count for pokenav?

Pokenav has restrictions on what kind of card you can take (Pokemon or Energy, no Trainers et al.), so you can pretend that you didn't find that type of card if you want.
 
Pokenav has restrictions on what kind of card you can take (Pokemon or Energy, no Trainers et al.), so you can pretend that you didn't find that type of card if you want.

So if you find an Energy or Pkmn, you can decide not to take either?
 
So this applies since when? I played 2 Great Balls with this in mind, thinking to thin out my deck in a Top 4 in 2005 with alot of judges watching, and no one stopped me then, when I had no Basic Pokemon left in my deck. Was that not possile in 2005 but it is now?
 
Good Article

As many people have already said, I will re-state the obvious: thank you for the insight-- I did not know about this. You related the concept of the game to something that made sense, almost alive...

Grazie!:thumb:
 
Ah, Queendom... 2@T4. And they say it was a fluke :lol: Scoreboard >>> words.

So this applies since when? I played 2 Great Balls with this in mind, thinking to thin out my deck in a Top 4 in 2005 with alot of judges watching, and no one stopped me then, when I had no Basic Pokemon left in my deck. Was that not possile in 2005 but it is now?

You played two great balls and took nothing in order to thin your deck? You must have been about to play a shuffle in then draw trainer like copycat or something, but no matter.

I'm guessing it was World 2K6 when PCL came to judge staff with this ruling, but my memory is hazy. Maybe Pop or BDS can help with this.

This was Worlds 2005 T4, yes? As to why those judges said nothing... ?
 
dld4a. The game has no memory. Even without memory the game can insist that plays are legal, possible, and have the potential to do something.

'snore: regarding the four exposed copies. No I've never had to rule on it but I have had the opportunity come up to go over the edge case and the implications of any legal card being potentially in your deck even if you personally know it isn't. Hope I have the edge case correct: otherwise its more humble pie for me ;(.


Pablo: even back in 2004 you could search having just established that it would fail. [ref Energy Search in the Compendium.]
 
Last edited:
You played two great balls and took nothing in order to thin your deck? You must have been about to play a shuffle in then draw trainer like copycat or something, but no matter.

I'm guessing it was World 2K6 when PCL came to judge staff with this ruling, but my memory is hazy. Maybe Pop or BDS can help with this.

This was Worlds 2005 T4, yes? As to why those judges said nothing... ?

Actually there simply weren't any Basic Pokemon left in my deck, and I knew this, so I just discarded the 2 Great Balls and shuffled my deck. I did this to anticpate a Rocket's Admin. played against me or me playing a future Copycat.

And yes it was Worlds 2005 T4, where if I had those 2 extra cards I don't lose that Top 4.
 
Like NoPoke said, playing 2 greatballs after eachother while knowing that no pokemon were in your deck was already legal for a long time. The new ruling here is that if you do have pokemon in your deck you can choose not to take any.
 
Back
Top