63 Card Deck Ruling Issue

[AlexanderTheAwesome]

Double Game Losses are difficult because then it could go the reverse way. I could shuffle my hand in and claim my opponent baited me. Then they're stuck with 2 options: play the N or possibly face a game loss when all they did was try to put a card back into their hand.

I definitely agree that there should be some way of being harder on the potential slow-player of the N, but it's so difficult to figure out exactly how we should go about it.

I agree with everything you said, but I think a double game loss is slightly better. Game loss for the player that shuffled their hand in rewards the player that tricked their opponent into shuffling their hand into their deck, but the double game loss is closer to a do-over.

Nononono, double game loss is very much a bad idea in Bo3
Imagine having won your last game and going "oh you're putting an N on your hand? Ok I'll just pretend I thought you were playing it and then I'll win te series 2-1"

 

[Maximinn]

But the thing is that requires the player playing VS Seeker to get the N, and then not play it. I can't imagine too may situations where that would happen.

I guess, thinking about it, this is true. If I played a VS seeker for an N and my opponent jumped the gun and shuffled in, it doesn't matter if I then actually played the N.

I suppose it's more important to declare specifically that you are NOT playing N when you VS seeker for it. Or make a point of putting it directly into your hand without going through the table first. VS Seeker doesn't say you need to reveal the card.

That last point made me think: Do you need to show your opponent what card you VS seekered for? They can search your discard at any time so is it their responsibility to know which supporters are in there and spot which one is missing?

 

[AlexanderTheAwesome]

But the thing is that requires the player playing VS Seeker to get the N, and then not play it. I can't imagine too may situations where that would happen.

I guess, thinking about it, this is true. If I played a VS seeker for an N and my opponent jumped the gun and shuffled in, it doesn't matter if I then actually played the N.

I suppose it's more important to declare specifically that you are NOT playing N when you VS seeker for it. Or make a point of putting it directly into your hand without going through the table first. VS Seeker doesn't say you need to reveal the card.

That last point made me think: Do you need to show your opponent what card you VS seekered for? They can search your discard at any time so is it their responsibility to know which supporters are in there and spot which one is missing?

No. I'm not sure why people think they can do this. You HAVE to show them. It's a public area, so anything done to it must be known to the public. What stops me from getting an energy? I mean you should have memorized that my discard contains 3 Sycamore, 4 N, 1 Shauna, 2 Colress, 1 Lysandre, 1 Trump Card, and exactly 7 darkness energy. You can't tell a player to memorize a list that literally changes every ten seconds. Especially when they don't need to, because they can just look through it at anytime. In a competitive scene you can never place someone in a position where they have to "just trust their opponent in this one".

 

[Maximinn]

Fair enough. I always announce what I'm doing in the discard pile anyway. I just wondered if it was technically required.

 

[Machamp The Champion]

Remember to stay on topic everyone. This thread is about the 63 card deck issue, not the N thing.

Personally, I think it was very likely this person did this on purpose. Even if they didn't, I think he was certainly aware of it before the 5th round of day 2. Unfortunately, I don't think there's much we can do now. I think the judges at that event should've DQ'd him then, but it appears to be too late. People should always be cautious when playing this person. Their name is Jacob Dudzik, by the way.

 

[Credits]

I think he should have been dq'ed also. It should have served as a reminder that you should quadruple check your decks, i know i check them before and after every match. This decision just serves as the predecessor to say "hey its ok of you screw up, we'll take your word for it" and now people take advantage of it.
Additionally the powers that be should check based on the list submitted, maybe spot check decks to prevent things like this especially when there are prizes involved.

 

[AlexanderTheAwesome]

I think he should have been dq'ed also. It should have served as a reminder that you should quadruple check your decks, i know i check them before and after every match. This decision just serves as the predecessor to say "hey its ok of you screw up, we'll take your word for it" and now people take advantage of it.
Additionally the powers that be should check based on the list submitted, maybe spot check decks to prevent things like this especially when there are prizes involved.

That's why everyone is so dumbfounded. Out of all the deck checks he had to do he still didn't get caught? How did no one notice the three extra cards

 

[Credits]

I think he should have been dq'ed also. It should have served as a reminder that you should quadruple check your decks, i know i check them before and after every match. This decision just serves as the predecessor to say "hey its ok of you screw up, we'll take your word for it" and now people take advantage of it.
Additionally the powers that be should check based on the list submitted, maybe spot check decks to prevent things like this especially when there are prizes involved.

That's why everyone is so dumbfounded. Out of all the deck checks he had to do he still didn't get caught? How did no one notice the three extra cards

Well i think in general people are too relaxed and believe it wont happen based on possibly seeing someone on a regular basis (for example). All of the evidence (and thats not rocket science, we're counting cards here) points towards an intended manipulation. To what level should anyone ever go in a game like this at particular levels. Do i have to count my opponent's deck? Do i have to sort through it to make sure they dont have 5 N? Its really just the old case of one bad apple spoils the whole bunch, unfortunately....