Nobleman of Crosssout problem

W

WarriorKing007

New Member
hi i have a question involving Nobleman of Crossout. i was playing at my local tourney and my opponent did Nobleman of Crossout on my face down Magical Merchant. i removed all copies from my deck. my opponent didnt go through his deck, so i assumed that he didnt play with them. we continued playing and after a couple turns for each of us, my opponent drew a card and said, "oh, i forgot to take out my merchants!" he had drawn a Magical Merchant. i thought this would be a game loss for my opponent, but i was wrong. we BOTH got game losses. the reason why I got a game loss is because i didnt ask my opponent to search his deck after Nobleman of Crossout was played, ignoring the other effect of Nobleman of Crossout. i was furious with this. How come this rule hasnt been enforced and if it has, why come it wasnt enforced at San Francisco SJC and many other big tourneys?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
The problem is, sloppy play comes from not enforcing the "smaller" things, like calling out your phases, and playing your Spell Cards to the field, and declaring a Side Deck WITH Fusions, etc...

You can't cry foul, if you aren't keeping your opponent honest. Sure, you can still call a Judge when your opponent plays improperly, which would probably be 90% of the time, but you really have to follow-up on the detail oriented plays, like Nobleman of Crossout. It tells you to check both players decks if the monster destroyed was a flip effect.

The Game State was irretrievably beyond repair once your opponent stated he had not removed "his" Magical Merchant's, so the only remedy was to issue both players, you and your opponent, a Game Loss for Procedural Errors.

Why is it not enforced everywhere else? Probably because of the very reason you are complaining now. It only happens when someone loses because of it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Raijinili said:
Your opponent would have to shuffle anyway, even if he had all three on the field.
Click to expand...
He didnt though, he is stating that his opponent did nothing just sat there staring into the distance.

seriously I stated this once before. The Yugioh Events are a joke, the players dont have full knowledge of what their doing and just playing off the sake of playing.

I bet you if you wouldnt have removed your creature your opponent would have said something.

You say he saw you go through your deck. Im assuming he knew why you were.

If it were me, I would probably give that player the game loss alone. becuase to me it looks like Unsportsman like conduct not Procedural error.

The way I would see PE would be if both players had forgotten about the second effect which then would be a double game loss for PE. :)

but every judge is different I would rule this way, and JD would rule another and MasterWoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo another way. :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have to agree, I think that a Doulbe game Loss was the right call here (even though I'm not a Judge, I follow all of the ruiling that I can via this sight). If your opponet doesn't search his deck for any copies of the card that Noblemen of Crossout removes (assuming its a flip effect monster of course), then you have the right (and should) to search their deck to varify it. If he/she forgot to remove any said monsters, they would get removed at that time (plus, you'd get to look though their deck), and even if there are no such monster, you can look through their deck, and possibly get an idea of what they are running. While it would be nice to only hand out one game loss, once your opponet doesn't remove said monster, the game state is damaged beyond repair.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
masterwoo0 said:
I agree with you Krazy. It would be nice to just give the one person a Game Loss, and the player who removed his cards just a Warning, but, Im sure you do it just like I would if I were hit with a Nobleman of Crossout. I dont care if its a Crimson Ninja, Im going to ask my opponent if he has one as well, AND check!!
Click to expand...
Of course, you would ask, but still as a profesional player especifically thouse that run about the same cards, you should know the rulings and rules for your cards.

The player playing the Nobleman of Crossout should have verified that the opponent didnt have said monster in their deck. The opponent should have asked "what are you doing?"

see both players are at a bit of fault here, because it was damaged beyond repair i mean really turns not 1 turn passed I would assume its a fault on both. but still, most of the time you dont even get to see your opponents deck becuase of player etiquette.

eventually you dont want to cheat your opponent so you get a judge to verify that their deck is clean from said monster.

Except in the case were the monster isnt a flip effect.

even with Nobleman of Extermination seeing a bit of play.

I dont know seriously a pro should know. Thats how i see it in the end. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've seen calls sim. to this made both ways. The difficult part about penalties is the very name..."Penality Guidelines"
Which makes any judge's call right when dealing with a penality no matter which way it's called. A good part of the way a judge may call this could and should have to do with intention....and of course irrepairable game state is a given....

That having been said...

Personally I'd rule that since a number of turns have gone by an irrepairable game state has been reached. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't looked through the rules concerning this) that its optional for the opposing player to search the opponent's deck in this situation. In my eyes this puts the brunt of the responsability on each player and thier own deck.

My ruling, player who failed to remove the copies of the card recieves a game loss. Player who failed to search opposing players deck....a suggestion to do so in the future.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
I've seen calls sim. to this made both ways. The difficult part about penalties is the very name..."Penality Guidelines"
Which makes any judge's call right when dealing with a penality no matter which way it's called. A good part of the way a judge may call this could and should have to do with intention....and of course irrepairable game state is a given....

That having been said...

Personally I'd rule that since a number of turns have gone by an irrepairable game state has been reached. I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong because I haven't looked through the rules concerning this) that its optional for the opposing player to search the opponent's deck in this situation. In my eyes this puts the brunt of the responsability on each player and thier own deck.

My ruling, player who failed to remove the copies of the card recieves a game loss. Player who failed to search opposing players deck....a suggestion to do so in the future.
Click to expand...

It's as mandatory as a Sangan
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
still.. we have to remember the level of the event.

if this occured at Nationals how would it have been ruled, as in how would it have been ruled if done at regionals or store tournament?

the rules should be harser at a higher level and less in lower correct?

or is that not the case or is all dependent on the judge?

I'm asking this because I would like to inform my players about these kind of things and would like to rule the same as the rest.

becuase 1 judge can say one thing in california something different in Iowa and something very much different in florida.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
An irrepairable game state caused by both players is difficult to be "lenient" with.

How would you suggest such a situation be handled on a level of competition of a lesser grade? What would you consider fair to both players that would be able to REPAIR the current game state? If the current game state can't be repaired the game must be deemed unplayable, if it's deemed unplayable someone needs to be held accountable for it.

I learned early on that as a judge in a sanctioned tournament you seldom do a "good thing" by being lenient on but rare occasion (the newest of players) and even then you'd best have a very understanding opponent or you'll find you'll end up creating more problems than you are attempting to solve.

In the long run you'll find that by being lenient you only let players from your store in for a world of trouble, misunderstanding, and poor habits when they get to larger tournaments.

I know that sounds harsh but I've seen through years of judging when I judge regional and national tournaments that the players from my area recieve penalities or warnings on a much lesser level (not because I'm less hard on them...if anything, and admitedly unfairly I'm tougher on them) If I had to estimate I'd say that the players I've been "tough on" at regional and national levels recieve penalties or warnings on about a 1 to 5 ratio compared to those I know don't have a judge in their area that is strict.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
i see.

so be the same in both situations? Its kool, then they will know instead of showing up and so forth.

but yea if its a lesser event, i would assume its both players fault. But in a larger events its not neceserally both players fault.

This years Magic world tournament during one of the matches 1 of the comentators caught a fault that nobody else had cought and told the floor judge about it.

they want back and examined the tape and found out that he was correct the penalty for this was a Warning on the Player playing the card becuase HE should know his cards. especially its rulings and to ask the opponent and so forth.

what had happend was that the 1 player played a card that when it gets destroyed the opponent skips his Untap phase and he could tap 5 cards on the field. At the same time he was also playing a card that made him Untap all his cards during other players untap steps instead of his own.

so oviously when the opponent skipped his Untap he would have to not be able to untap. But guess what he did? he Untaped made the game very irriparable to the point were the whole game ended and the next game wasnt going to start untill they found out what happend exactly.

but in the end all he got was a warning. The opponent wasnt at fault because he oviously didnt do anything, and it wasnt his card to begin with.

so you know. sometimes you as the player should know your cards.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I hate to say it, but when you are playing at that level, any advantage is an advantage, even if it comes from a misplay.

Mistakes happen, no matter what level Tourney you are at, and it's only by being at that level that you hope each player is "willing" enough to police up their own errors when they do come, or at least call a Judge at the earliest possible.

You also have some people who are still playing some cards incorrectly, which adds to the confusion.

So, would you rather be lenient in that situation as well, when a "lenient" call can possible pass a bad player up the ladder, or be more rigid with calls, and place the responsibility on both players BECAUSE it is a higher level play event.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
True... but still, the main responsibility is still at the side of the forgetting player. He seemed at that moment to search for the Merchants. If it was on another moment that he would search, I'd say 'Yes, it is both players fault'. But now it looked like he searched for it. Nonethless to say, of course you'd have had to ask to search too in his Deck because there did show up no Merchants at all.
But I think normally spoken the opponent should have had a loss, and WarriorKing should have had a warning, because WarriorKing couldn't know that his opponent wasn't actually searching at all for Merchant.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Again, it doesnt say that the only responsibility lies with the controller of his deck to CHECK his Deck. It says BOTH players. So if I see you glance through your Deck, and then Shuffle it, we have a whole new set of problems.

If I dont see that happen, then it's my responsibility to ask for it to happen, and/or allow me to check.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
As was pointed out, the first ruling in Nobleman of Crossout reads...

If the targeted monster is a Flip Effect Monster, it is not flipped face-up and its Flip Effect is not activated. Both players must reveal their Decks to each other to verify that all cards of the same name as the Flip Effect Monster are removed from play.

If that isn't mandatory I don't know what is. As I said earlier, anything that is mandatory and is a state (for lack of a better word) that is known to both players, the responsability rests equally.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
As was pointed out, the first ruling in Nobleman of Crossout reads...

If the targeted monster is a Flip Effect Monster, it is not flipped face-up and its Flip Effect is not activated. Both players must reveal their Decks to each other to verify that all cards of the same name as the Flip Effect Monster are removed from play.

If that isn't mandatory I don't know what is. As I said earlier, anything that is mandatory and is a state (for lack of a better word) that is known to both players, the responsability rests equally.
Click to expand...

Missed that...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
okay so the search isnt done by your self.

the way the card is played then is.

You nobleman a Merchant lets say for the example. then Player A hands over their deck to Player B and Player B hands over their deck to Player A so that each player can check each others decks for multiple copies.

not Player A checks their own and not Player B checks their own.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top