Go Back   Pojo.com Forums > Yu-Gi-Oh! > Yu-Gi-Oh TCG Q & A
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-31-2011, 05:02 PM   #1
Eneru
Registered User
 
Eneru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 362
iTrader: 2 (100%)
Default Chain Disappearance

If I active "Chain Disappearance" and my opponent only removes 2 copies of let's say "Kagemusha of the Six Samurai" . Can I check his deck AND hand for verification?
__________________


▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
You know, you know - no you don't, you don't.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Eneru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 05:05 PM   #2
D1Case
Pojo Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 2,632
iTrader: 0
Default

I'd say No. there is no reason for him to "hide" the third copy, as it is now a dead draw.
D1Case is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 05:20 PM   #3
Nathan Soowal
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida. ŘFWGK†∆DG∆F
Posts: 4,861
iTrader: 16 (77%)
Default

Well your wrong, you can verify since the maximum number of legal copies was not sent or revealed, its not a moral issue :/
Nathan Soowal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 05:26 PM   #4
D1Case
Pojo Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 2,632
iTrader: 0
Default

Nice proof.

Oh wait, i dont see any.
Its not in the card text.
Its not in the rulings.

Care to support your statement with any?
D1Case is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 05:41 PM   #5
ness00
セクサリス
 
ness00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 24
Posts: 36,711
iTrader: 0
Default

The OCG says that while you don't verify the Deck and Hand while resolving Chain Disappearance, if the maximum number of copies cannot be accounted for in public locations, then you can request to verify.

Lately, a number of Cards in the TCG have been ruled this way (even Nobleman of Crossout), so it's safe to assume it works that way too.
__________________
ness00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 05:47 PM   #6
D1Case
Pojo Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 2,632
iTrader: 0
Default

A good debate, but note that Nobleman of Crossout does not allow the player to verify the hand. (One copy of the flip monster could be in the hand.) Verifying the deck ensures that a player isnt cheating; just like we now allow players to verify the hand with Mind Crush. Intent is not to give a tactical advantage, but to facilitate honest play.

Chain disaapearance removes them from both locations. No place to hide.
D1Case is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 06:13 PM   #7
catking5
Who ya gonna call?
 
catking5's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,013
iTrader: 0
Default

Yes, but you are allowed to check ALL possible places a card you Chain Disappearance could have multiples of. That includes the hand. That is if they aren't all in public knowledge areas.

Duh. No debate, it works that wayyyy, man.
__________________
Magic Stats:
Nothing Important Yet (Below Average on MTGO)

Note: I only play MTGO and Cockatrice. Saves money and I can play more often.
catking5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 06:17 PM   #8
bioober
Pojo Veteran
 
bioober's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,503
iTrader: 5 (86%)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D1Case View Post
A good debate, but note that Nobleman of Crossout does not allow the player to verify the hand. (One copy of the flip monster could be in the hand.) Verifying the deck ensures that a player isnt cheating; just like we now allow players to verify the hand with Mind Crush. Intent is not to give a tactical advantage, but to facilitate honest play.

Chain disaapearance removes them from both locations. No place to hide.
It doesn't matter if they have the Flip Effect monster in the hand, Nobleman of Crossout removes from the deck so that's where you'll check to confirm.

Chain Disappearance removes from both the hand and the deck so you check both.

And hiding it is a big deal. Assume they are hiding it in their hand and they have a Fabled unicore on the field, that would change the entire game state.
__________________
http://www.pojo.biz/board/signaturepics/sigpic99733_4.gif
bioober is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 06:27 PM   #9
ness00
セクサリス
 
ness00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 24
Posts: 36,711
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D1Case View Post
A good debate, but note that Nobleman of Crossout does not allow the player to verify the hand. (One copy of the flip monster could be in the hand.) Verifying the deck ensures that a player isnt cheating; just like we now allow players to verify the hand with Mind Crush. Intent is not to give a tactical advantage, but to facilitate honest play.

Chain disaapearance removes them from both locations. No place to hide.
No one gave a tactical advantage. This is simply a verification, not a study of the Deck and Hand. I do see your point that it's quite hard for a player to cheat while the Card Banishes all copies from the two main non-public locations, but this is a very specific case.

For example, let's say only 1 Kagemusha is Banished, while 1 is in the Graveyard. No verification is done. The one in the Graveyard is shuffled in the Deck, and is eventually involved in Gameplay again. Can you prove it's the same one that was in the Graveyard, and not a third Kagemusha?

Or lets say that in the OP's example, 1 of the Banished Kagemushas is returned to the Deck. Can you prove that only 2 are played?


Upon resolving Chain Disappearance, you can't possibly know what will happen with the Banished Cards. Unless all legally allowed copies of the Card are Banished, that is. The same applies to other Cards like Mind Crush, which if you weren't allowed to verify, the Card could eventually be added to the Hand.


We have a TCG ruling for similar Cards, and we have an official OCG ruling (which you may ignore if you like) for this direct case. Not using it based solely on assuming that nothing may go wrong sounds unnecessarily risky. Not verifying only works if you can Supervise anything that may go wrong, be it verifying the Deck yourself as a judge (which is redundant), or supervising any suspicious scenario, which cannot be realistically afforded.
__________________
ness00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 07:29 PM   #10
D1Case
Pojo Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 2,632
iTrader: 0
Default

I was unaware of the OCG ruling, but from your above, Am I to understand that the OCG player can request a verification? As in a judge veridfication, like we used to with Mind Crush?

(btw, My position is that the game assumes integrity, that a player will correctly resolve card effects, and that verification was incorporated when ambiguity created opportunities for cheating.
I do insist that Seeing a player's hand provides a major tactical advantage, and is the source for minor disputes. However, history has made this the only acceptable course.

Still, Note that an infernity player doesnt have to verify that he only set spells and traps.)
D1Case is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 07:42 PM   #11
bioober
Pojo Veteran
 
bioober's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,503
iTrader: 5 (86%)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D1Case View Post
I was unaware of the OCG ruling, but from your above, Am I to understand that the OCG player can request a verification? As in a judge veridfication, like we used to with Mind Crush?

(btw, My position is that the game assumes integrity, that a player will correctly resolve card effects, and that verification was incorporated when ambiguity created opportunities for cheating.
I do insist that Seeing a player's hand provides a major tactical advantage, and is the source for minor disputes. However, history has made this the only acceptable course.

Still, Note that an infernity player doesnt have to verify that he only set spells and traps.)
Don't forget they can also set Toy Magician
__________________
http://www.pojo.biz/board/signaturepics/sigpic99733_4.gif
bioober is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 08:03 PM   #12
Jackel
Treeborn Hipster
 
Jackel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 829
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by D1Case View Post
I was unaware of the OCG ruling, but from your above, Am I to understand that the OCG player can request a verification? As in a judge veridfication, like we used to with Mind Crush?

(btw, My position is that the game assumes integrity, that a player will correctly resolve card effects, and that verification was incorporated when ambiguity created opportunities for cheating.
I do insist that Seeing a player's hand provides a major tactical advantage, and is the source for minor disputes. However, history has made this the only acceptable course.

Still, Note that an infernity player doesnt have to verify that he only set spells and traps.)
It's not about integrity. Well, the reason is integrity, but the effect is still the same: checking their hand has become part of the effect and benefit of running the card essentially.
Jackel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 08:14 PM   #13
Camero
Hipsteroid
 
Camero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,088
iTrader: 0
Default

Actually, this brings up a question I had--a few years ago I was at team regionals with a friend and one of these kinds of situations came up, but I am not sure if this is allowed:

My friend had a bunch of Trap cards face down, and his opponent used Heavy Storm. My friend responds with Fake Trap. He asked if the judge could confirm that all his cards were traps, which he did, and thus only the judge saw the identity of the face down cards.(Team regionals was literally maybe 10 people altogether, so judges were very bored and very available).

Is this actually allowed? I can understand maybe this situation, since all that needs to be confirmed is that they are trap cards(in theory you could even cover up most of the card and just show the colour of it), but would this be allowed in other situations, to avoid giving tactical advantage?
__________________
Stop on by the new Vehicroid Guide!
http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=1087027

New to the game? Want to get better? Read this article!
http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=1167007

This is definitely not a shameless plug for my CAC set!
http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=1149606
Camero is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 08:18 PM   #14
ness00
セクサリス
 
ness00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 24
Posts: 36,711
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
I was unaware of the OCG ruling, but from your above, Am I to understand that the OCG player can request a verification? As in a judge veridfication, like we used to with Mind Crush?
Apologies if my summary wasn't too clear. The player can briefly request to verify (him/herself).

Quote:
(btw, My position is that the game assumes integrity, that a player will correctly resolve card effects, and that verification was incorporated when ambiguity created opportunities for cheating.
That's a valid point of view, but from that point of view, verification is unnecessary in every scenario. If my opponent did discard 1 copy of Reborn Tengu, a Card commonly played in triples, due to the effect of Mind Crush, and I assume that he has correctly resolved the effect, then I won't want to verify. However, I could suspect a certain ambiguety, which is why the ruling to verify exists.

Let's assume the opposite: A player fails to resolve the Card properly (unintentionally). A player Normal Summons Proto-Cyber Dragon (whose ATK is decreased to 1000 or lower by another effect) and the opponent activates Chain Disappearance. That copy of PCD is Banished, and the player claims that he has no more Cards of the same name in the Deck. Eventually, the player Special Summons Cyber Dragon. The player actually claimed he had no more copies of Proto-Cyber Dragon, but he actually ran 3 copies of Cyber Dragon. If the player activating Chain Disappearance was allowed to verify (and used that option), this could have been prevented.

(NOTE: Actually, it's not certain whether you should Banish "Cyber Dragon" or "Proto-Cyber Dragon". Just using it as an example on top of my head).

Quote:
Still, Note that an infernity player doesnt have to verify that he only set spells and traps.
Well, you could call a judge if you found it suspicious, although this is not the resolution of an effect.



It's a thin border between unintentional errors and cheating, and both sides can be solved by a brief verification. In a Mind Crush example, you may have a player unintentionally missing a second copy of his Card, and a brief reminder by the opponent may solve the situation. However, the same player can simply insist "I have no more copies", draw some Cards, and then win the Duel due to that extra copy that wasn't discarded, effectively cheating. So long as the opponent hesistates in calling a judge.


Quote:
Is this actually allowed? I can understand maybe this situation, since all that needs to be confirmed is that they are trap cards(in theory you could even cover up most of the card and just show the colour of it), but would this be allowed in other situations, to avoid giving tactical advantage?
Well, you actually reveal the Trap Cards for Fake Trap's effect. It's somewhere in its rulings. Too much ice cream in front of me to check right now.

But if you suspect of an illegal activation, and improper resolution, an illegal move, etc., you can call a judge. An Appropriate response by the judge would be a brief "nothing is wrong". The judge wouldn't give an answer like "the set Cards are Mirror Force and Torrential Tribute".


EDIT: Here you go:

Quote:
"The face-down Trap Cards protected by "Fake Trap" must be revealed when resolving the effect that would destroy them, to confirm that they are Trap Cards.
__________________
ness00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 08:22 PM   #15
Camero
Hipsteroid
 
Camero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,088
iTrader: 0
Default

So then the opponent isn't absolutely entitled to know what the identity of the trap cards are? The judge in this case just said "they're all traps".
__________________
Stop on by the new Vehicroid Guide!
http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=1087027

New to the game? Want to get better? Read this article!
http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=1167007

This is definitely not a shameless plug for my CAC set!
http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=1149606
Camero is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2011, 08:37 PM   #16
ness00
セクサリス
 
ness00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Argentina
Age: 24
Posts: 36,711
iTrader: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camero View Post
So then the opponent isn't absolutely entitled to know what the identity of the trap cards are? The judge in this case just said "they're all traps".
Again, in your particular scenario, Fake Trap requires you to reveal the Trap Cards if they are face-down. The player didn't resolve the Card correctly, but the judge's answer should suffice (and you can consequently appeal).

In general situations, it is possible to ask a judge to verify something, and an Appropriate response from the judge would be to give you an OK answer or to investigate the issue if it exists. In other words, you wouldn't get a compromising response like "this player has no more Synchro Monsters in his Extra Deck".
__________________
ness00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 12:18 AM   #17
ProSensei
One More Thing...
 
ProSensei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Finland
Age: 23
Posts: 1,597
iTrader: 2 (100%)
Default

I'd say you'd go with the ruling of Inferno Reckless Summon:

If either player does not Special Summon monsters so that they have 3 monsters with the same name in play after resolving "Inferno Reckless Summon," the opponent can check that player's hand and Deck to verify that they have Summoned all possible copies of the chosen monster. If that monster is Limited or Semi-Limited, and the maximum number of copies allowed per Deck are on that player's side of the field, in their Graveyard or in their Removed Zone, their opponent can not check their hand and Deck for additional copies.[1]
__________________
Hs/Ws

http://www.pojo.biz/board/showthread.php?t=829175

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pegasus the Pedo
Summoning CED and then not activating it's ability in priority is like getting invited to a gangbang party and not going. Seriously dude, are you high? And to all who say CED isn't going to be banned, you all FAIL! GTFO! Someone will laugh @ your posts in the future..
ProSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2011, 06:55 AM   #18
John Danker
Pojo Veteran
 
John Danker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: 0
Default

I think a lot of people (if not most) misunderstand the purpose of the verification process. When you understand the reasoning behind the verification process it's fairly simple to rule correctly in such scenarios. The verification process isn't part of the effect of the card but rather there to ensure that an unrepairable game state does not develop later in the game. This is why with cards that remove from the deck both players must verify that the removal process has been completed.

As far as judge verification, that's not done, both KDE and previously UD have determined doing so unnecessarily uses a judge's time and it sets a bad precident. If they deem one scenario mandates a judge's verification there are a dozen or more other scenarios where it would be just as valid.....and they don't want to go there.
John Danker is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

 
Advertisement


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.