Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

When is an action an action?

K

keniselvis

New Member
Hi! I originally posted this in the "Ask the Rules Team". Unfortunately, my question doesn't fit there.

Can any of you help me with this question?

Here is my original post: (and thanks!)

REALLY sorry if this is a repeat question. Had this situation come up in a cities.

During my turn I declared that I was going to N. BEFORE my opponent or myself made any other action, I changed my mind. I had not played the card. It was in my hand. I had not even taken it out of my hand. My opponent had done nothing either.

I realized that I could play another card before I "N'd" so I "took it back" and said something like, "Actually, I'm going to do ________, and then I'm going to N."

My opponent called the judge over and asked him if I had to N right then and there because I said I was going to play it.

The judge asked me if I had the card.

I said Yes.

He then said that yes, if I declared I was going to play N, I had to play it, even though I hadn't actually played it and the game play hadn't changed.

So, first of all, is this correct?

Second, what if I accidentally declare that I'm going to play a card, but I said the wrong card or got mixed up and I don't even HAVE the card in my hand. (sidebar: The assumption is that I'm not jacking around and these are honest mistakes.) Is there a prize penalty if I declare a card that I don't even have in my hand?
Click to expand...
 
This is a really difficult situation that doesn't have any cut-and-dry rulings about. I know I've seen a lot of people use the chess concept; once your hand leaves the card, you can't take it back without an opponent's permission, but we've never had an official answer.

I can say with certainty that there is a very large risk of a prize penalty if you didn't have the card in hand (especially if we're just specifically talking about N). This could easily fall under "Use of dubious game actions intended to deceive your opponent into making misplays," which actually comes with a recommended starting penalty of DQ. Even though you're saying it's an honest mistake, I can say with certainty that if I had to make that judging call, I would give AT LEAST a prize penalty for declaring N when you don't even have it in hand, just because there is such a big chance of destroying the game state.
 
It gets strange with attacks. Over the weekend, I started to say "Megalo…" when I had my hand on the energies ready to do the discard action for G-Booster. My opponent let me G-Booster without issue, but asking Judges about it, it seems the board action of discarding energies states a clearer intention of the attack you were going to do than anything I may have said verbally.

I don't know how that goes with say two attacks on the card that require no board change. Obivously, verbal is all we have in those situations.

If I were the Judge, I would think an opponent can say all kinds of things, but it's not for real until they show a card. If you showed the N, didn't let go, and tried to do something else first, I could see the Judge's ruling making sense. But just saying "N" without revealing anything…I wouldn't think means anything.
 
When I played in the last States I played in, I was going to attack with my Articuno's Frost Prison but I noticed another move in my hand. So I said "Frost", then " no wait, I have another move" I took the attack back because I did not fully state it and played my next move. My opponent said no because I was getting ready to attack and would not let me. I told him I never fully announced the attack so I'm making this move. A player near me said the same thing I told him that I never said the full attack. It means other players do respect the "Its not played if hand is still on the card", though this applies to verbal statements as well. I was going to do it reguardless of what he said anyway because I tend to play the game the way I want.

Also, like Phadrex said, it all depends on the Judge. You have some judges and players who respect the unwritten standard of "its played when you take your hand off it" and you have some Judges and players who rule shark who treats every action as law. In any case, I would say the correct move would be as long as the cards was not played, you should have been able to play your other options before N.

I'm the type of player who know intent so it would not bother me.
 
I would say you declared a move without playing a card, so therefore "taking back" the declaration (since there was no proof) would be fine, I'd think. Actions count more than words, so playing down the TSS/energy/Pokemon would take precedence over saying what you're doing. And a card isn't really played until your hand's off of it.

Attacks are a different matter, though, because all you can do is declare an attack, you can't "play" one. (Declaring a Beach draw or Pokemon power goes along with this.) But if you don't finish saying the name of it (saying "Frost…" instead of "Frost Spear"), then you haven't fully declared the attack, and it's another instance of being able to take it back.

Sadly, it's all technicality and what the judges/your opponent will let you get away with, usually.
 
I think, that even if there is no action following you physically saying a cards name or attack. And you have that small gap of grey area in time where you could say no I'm not going to do that just yet. And it doesn't effect anything. You should be able to take it back because the hand is private knowledge. Especially if you haven't even differentiated that N is even in your hand. I think, the entire game as a whole could use an entire rules revision at the end of every rotation. Not sure if this is done, but we need stricter, more flat rules & punishments for particular actions. Not at a judge's discretion. To me, that is a fundamental flaw in the game. Some people get away with things in certain matches when on the same day across the country somebody is losing out of entering a top cut because they did the same thing. I say, we need a flat across the board open rule & punishment. And we need to abolish judge discretion.
 
rileysill32 said:
I think, that even if there is no action following you physically saying a cards name or attack. And you have that small gap of grey area in time where you could say no I'm not going to do that just yet. And it doesn't effect anything. You should be able to take it back because the hand is private knowledge. Especially if you haven't even differentiated that N is even in your hand. I think, the entire game as a whole could use an entire rules revision at the end of every rotation. Not sure if this is done, but we need stricter, more flat rules & punishments for particular actions. Not at a judge's discretion. To me, that is a fundamental flaw in the game. Some people get away with things in certain matches when on the same day across the country somebody is losing out of entering a top cut because they did the same thing. I say, we need a flat across the board open rule & punishment. And we need to abolish judge discretion.
Click to expand...

The problem with abolishing judge discretion is that sometimes penalties need to be differentiated based on the offender and type of crime. It we would have stricter flat rules, then you run the risk of potentially turning away some players new to the game because of the harsh punishments.

Let's say for instance you have 2 players, Little Billy, and Lance. Little Billy is 7 years old, new to the game, and excited about entering his first tournament. Lance, on the other hand, is a seasoned vet that has played Pokémon competitively since the game came out, and has been invited to Worlds the last 8 years. If both people make the exact same "mistake" in a tournament, don't you think Little Billy should be given a lesser penalty for making an honest mistake and the pro that likely knows better should be given a tougher penalty. That is only possible with the judge's discretion rules we have now.

Should some things be more clear (like this talk of when an action is an action)? Yes, they should. But removing judge's discretion is not the way to do it. The rules, as they are now, are I believe intentionally left somewhat vague to allow judges to use the same criteria for multiple kinds of problems. By doing what you're suggesting, I would expect to see the penalty guidelines get at least 2-3 times longer and they would be less helpful in finding some way to deal with the wide range of different problems that can come up in a tournament.
 
tomoyosfan1 said:
The problem with abolishing judge discretion is that sometimes penalties need to be differentiated based on the offender and type of crime. It we would have stricter flat rules, then you run the risk of potentially turning away some players new to the game because of the harsh punishments.

Let's say for instance you have 2 players, Little Billy, and Lance. Little Billy is 7 years old, new to the game, and excited about entering his first tournament. Lance, on the other hand, is a seasoned vet that has played Pokémon competitively since the game came out, and has been invited to Worlds the last 8 years. If both people make the exact same "mistake" in a tournament, don't you think Little Billy should be given a lesser penalty for making an honest mistake and the pro that likely knows better should be given a tougher penalty. That is only possible with the judge's discretion rules we have now.

Should some things be more clear (like this talk of when an action is an action)? Yes, they should. But removing judge's discretion is not the way to do it. The rules, as they are now, are I believe intentionally left somewhat vague to allow judges to use the same criteria for multiple kinds of problems. By doing what you're suggesting, I would expect to see the penalty guidelines get at least 2-3 times longer and they would be less helpful in finding some way to deal with the wide range of different problems that can come up in a tournament.
Click to expand...

No I don't think so. Rules are rules. Everybody should make it fair. Especially when money is involved. Do whatever you want in your free time having fun playing goofy decks and battling.
But if I pay $400 for a hotel and travel expenses to go to a tournament and these types of wishy washy judgement calls effect my play when they didn't effect somebody else's. I'm going to go berserk.
What kind of lesson does that teach little billy? No get out of jail free cards. It's time to grow up.
The rules wouldn't be any longer at all with flat, non changing rules that transfer from format to format.

Rule#1 - Judge can give warning, or prize penalty upon first infraction of rules.
Rule#2 - Auto prize penalty on rule infraction.
Rule#3 - You're done.
This makes the game much more simple and quicker. Things get too bogged down and stupid. We don't need an online discussion for this, it should just be done.
If Little Billy can't handle following the rules and wants to play in a tournament. Maybe he should go play soccer where everybody get's a trophy for just being on the team.
People in the pokemon community are very liberal and "wussy". In my opinion. A leading reason as to why I quit. I love the game, but the community just has way to much
estrogen-like drama. It's not worth it.
 
That seems a little tense for a tournament based on a children's card game. If it seems that big of an issue, maybe you're investing too much into the game. I feel the flexible penalty system works, and if you don't agree with the judge's decision, appeal to the Head Judge.
 
Sorry, Riley, I have to disagree with you. As a seasoned judge, I would definitely go "easier" on a brand new player, especially in juniors over a pro in masters. I have had to make calls like that before where the newer player gets a caution instead of a warning, or a warning instead of prize loss (depending on circumstance). This in all is a children's game, and If Little Billy gets the same treatment as a professional player, odds are that Little Billy will not be back for another event, ever, and that is something we try to avoid happening. That does not mean we will not talk to him about what happened, and to teach him on how to properly do what he did or did not do that would of earned a penalty. Also, if you cared at all, you would see that the document is penalty GUIDELINES. Judge staff does have the authority to change the guideline as they see fit, but it is up to the head judge of the event to make the final call.

Now for the OP question, I would rule that since a card was not played, then there is no action. However, I would see if there was an intent to making opponent misplay (shuffle hand into deck w/o card effect). For attacks, obvious intent is obvious, If you say "Megalo..." and start to discard 2 energy and you have G-Booster attached, odds are you meant to say G-Booster, and even I would acknowledge that. However, on the partial declaration of the attack name, even if not finished, you have entered the attack step, and then must go through with an attack, pass, or ask opponent to go back into main step.
 
This isn't poker (where your verbal declaration is binding). Some common sense and courtesy should come into play first. That was clearly lacking in the TC's judge.
 
I asked a top player about this once, as it came up in a Cities and I can't summarize it any better than he did:

"The common sense approach would be to rewind to the place where BOTH players agree on the game state, then go forward without ambiguity".

This was about an attack, but the same principle applies to the play of trainers. The only problem with this innately logical approach is when the action has resulted in an irreversible game state, such as I play Colress and say N and my opponent shuffles his hand in. In that case, I would expect to get a game loss for a misleading action that induced an irreversible game play error. I would be very upset if my opponent got a game loss in this situation, but I fear some Judges may rule it that way.
 
Last edited:
We've had a few examples of potential take backs. Let's summarize findings so far:

  1. Declare a card without revealing: you should be able to take it back.
  2. Declare attack (maybe only partially) while illustrating different attack with game state and cards: the cards indicate the intent of the other attack, but might need a Judge to get involved.
  3. Partially declare attack and then want to play a card: no. The rules would say you've entered the attack phase with your intent, and only your opponent can grant you the permission to go back.
 
Even if the rules say you've entered a state, and you believe you're dedicated to it, always ask your opponent if they mind if you take it back. In this game you kind of build up karma with other players and become known with one another. You build up friendships and players you've kind of become friends with will let you take things back more often than not. Also, if you let your opponents take something small back they will let you take things back too.

This is why I always let my opponents take just about anything back. It'll come back to me in the future when I wish I could take something back.

An example is, at florida regionals day 2 I played a guy who was clearly stalling after he won game 1. He pile shuffled my own deck at game start of game 2 after shuffling his own deck for close to 10 minutes - something he didn't do start of game 1. Then, early in the game he noticed my watch and claimed he saw me looking at it (something I did do, because I noticed he had really began to slow down gameplay and I wanted to be conscious of how long his turns were becoming) and asked me to take it off. I said "No, you can wear watches as long as you are not timing the rounds". He then asked a judge over, and was told the same thing and told that "They have no reason to believe I was timing the rounds, and see no benefit of me stalling". We then got no time extension. So, he just got another five free minutes taken off of the game.

After all of this stalling, he made a misplay. A pretty big one that I may have been able to come back from given more time in the game. I told him no, because he had been stalling all game. That is the karma I'm talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top