The "no effect" rule needs to go.

[Chairman Kaga]

zero seems to be an option only when searching your deck

Magic explains it this way (library = deck in Magic parlance):

If you’re required to search a zone not revealed to all players for cards of a given quality, such as card type or color, you aren’t required to find some or all of those cards even if they’re present; however, if you do choose to find cards, you must reveal those cards to all players. Even if you don’t find any cards, you are still considered to have searched the zone.

If you’re simply searching for a quantity of cards, such as “a card” or “three cards,” you must find that many cards (or as many as possible). These cards often aren’t revealed.

Example: If an effect causes you to search a player’s library for all duplicates of a particular card and remove them from the game, you may choose to leave some of them alone, but if an effect causes you to search your library for three cards and it contains at least three, you can’t choose less than three.

World of Warcraft says it like this:

A player searching a non-public zone for a card of a specified description can fail to find a card. The player doesn’t have to say whether the failure to find was by choice or by absence. However, a player searching a zone for “a card” can’t fail to find a card unless that zone is empty.

Example: As Swiftshift resolves, you can choose to search your deck, your graveyard, or both. If you choose to search only your deck, you can fail to find a Form card. You shuffle your deck only if you choose to search it.

Swiftshift, 4, Druid, Instant Ability—Feral
Search your deck and/or graveyard for a Form card, reveal it, and put it into your hand.

Pokemon follows the same philosophy.

It's not that you're allowed to pick zero, it's that you're not required to prove that a card with a particular property is absent from a non-public zone.

 

[ninetales1234]

I firmly believe that the rule that states you cannot perform an action for no effect is a poor rule that introduces unnecessary complications and arbitrariness into the game.

I was going to make great big thread on this subject someday, but never got to it. Looks like someone's done it for me.:smile:
I hate having to explain to the players I help out at my league, that- in every other application of the words "up to", "up to" includes zero, however, in Pokemon, this is not so.

I don't understand how this isn't completely contradictory. The game is aware that your opponent's Pokemon is an Evolved Pokemon and I believe the game can deduce that Regice's power will have no "effect," just a "cost," but, for some reason, you can use Regice's power to no effect despite not being able to use Delcatty's to no effect.

So you can use an attack for no effect? Another contradiction. It may be the case that you cannot use Call for Family to search your deck, but you can announce the attack and get rid of Holon Circle. In this case, I think the wording of this ruling needs to be clarified.

Looks like the ruling people got themselves into a hole- I hope they can figure out how to get out.

I believe the most elegant solution is to get rid of the rule that says you cannot perform an action for no effect. Performing actions to no effect in order to stall is already against the rules, and I do not believe this would significantly increase stalling. It would also not change the game dramatically - Regice remains a pretty good way to dump cards out of your hand, you can ditch Rare Candies before you Cosmic Power without having a Basic in play, and so on, but for the most part, I believe the game would remain fundamentally the same without the confusion and seemingly arbitrary rulings regarding the "no effect" rule.

The simplest solutions are the best.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you on the Rare Candy thing (because it tells you to choose a Basic Pokemon in play) but I agree this is what will happen- the game will pretty much be the same, only less confusion.

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton
-------------
Here's some stuff to think about:

Example: You want to play Energy Restore, even though there are no energy cards in your discard pile. You play it so that you can get Energy Restore into your discard pile.
After that, you intend to play Trash Exchange.
You intend to play Energy Restore (even though you knew it would do nothing) in order to maximize the number of cards in your discard pile before you play Trash Exchange. You wouldn't be stalling when you play Energy Restore. You would be getting something out of it. However, the current rulings seem to suppress you as though you are a staller.

Example #2: You want to play Town Volunteers. There are no Pokemon or Energy in your discard pile. However, you wish to play it to increase the number of Supporters in your discard pile. You have Bannette-ex in play and know that the ability to do an additional 10 damage will guarantee a knock out of your opponent's Pokemon on your next turn. Are you stalling because you want to play Town Volunteers? You would literally be choosing "5 Pokemon cards and/or basic Energy cards from your discard pile" when you choose zero (in fact, you're doing as much as you can). You wish to use a bit of strategy. You're not stalling.

Example #3: Let's use the same situation as #2, but instead of Town Volunteers use Rival when your deck has zero cards. Should Rival fall under the "do as much as you can" rule, or can you not do it for "no effect".
Increasing the amount of damage you can do with Bannette-ex can clearly have an impact on the game. If 10 damage means the difference between knocking out a Pokemon and not knocking it out, playing a supporter in such fashion is very much not "no effect".

 

[DukeFireBird]

When you search the deck via an effect (Poke Ball, Roseannes, Bebes, etc) you fulfill the effect rule or searching an unknown zone. The search can also fail because deck contents, to the game, cannot be known. If you play Night Maintenance, you MUST choose a minimum of 1 card because it says up to 3, and because the discard pile is public knowledge, the game knows there is a valid target.

Pidgeot FRLG, allowed you to search your deck for any 1 card. If you used the power, YOU MUST PICK 1 CARD. Even if the card you want isnt there, you must choose one, because you are looking for an unrestricted card.

an unrestricted card is something not restricted by a search.

Roseannes - restricted, looks for basic pokemon or basic energy
Pokeball - restricted, searches for a pokemon
Slowking's Trump Card - unrestricted, searches for any 1 card
Professor Oak's Visit/Team Galactic's Mars - restricted, must have at least 1 card in deck to draw.
Potion - restricted, must have a pokemon with at least 1 damage counter in play

Those are just a small handful of examples

Time-Space Distortion is a real weird card because you can only play it when your discard pile has at least 1 pokemon in it. then you flip 3 coins. If you only have 1 pokemon in your discard pile and you flip 3 heads, you get the one and your done.
If you have 3 pokemon and you flip 3 heads, you must take them all.
If you have 2, and you flip 3, you take both.

As long as an effect happens the card is legally used.

Regice is being challenged by myself because of the metarule it violates.

I hope my examples make it seem clearer to what regards an effect for playing a card.

~Duke

 

[Magic_Umbreon]

Regice needs proper text

Regice is not the first example of where a card can be discarded as an effect not a cost.

Without Solrock in play, Lunatone's gravity change powr: can be used to discard a card with no further effect.

Therefore sometimes discarding card(s) is a cost and sometimes it is an effect.

Regice isn't so different a card, only it is worded incorrectly due to a mistranslation.

It would be more appropriate to be phrased:

Once during your turn (before your attack), you may discard 2 cards from your hand. Then, choose 1 of your opponent's Active Pokémon that isn't an evolved Pokémon. Your opponent switches that Pokémon with one of his or her Benched Pokémon. This power can't be used if Regice is affected by a Special Condition.

I don't think a ruling is sufficent. It should be errata'd because the text is wrong and inconsistent with other cards phrased similarly.