PikaPower56
New Member
Awesome article! Very well done and very helpful!:thumb:
The implications of voluntary failure in a deck search.
- Thread starter bulbasnore
- Start date
Azure Kite
New Member
No, this is for voluntary failure of DECK SEARCH. There can't be voluntary discard search, because the discard pile is free for anyone to go through. Plus, even if it was allowed, you cannot shuffle your discard pile randomizing it, ESPECIALLY if there are no cards in it.
badganondorf
New Member
Nothing new really but still pretty useful. The "forgetting" rule is brilliant indeed. Great article!
Not that I don't dig it, though. And to everyone, thanks for the kind words... I hope you will ask a question in stead, so I don't have to lock this as a poll. ;-)
Not exactly. I'm saying if the card says search for something specific in your deck, you can take _nothing_ . Make sure you understand why before you do it though. Thanks for wrestling with the concept.
Ah, well, the beauty of a database driven website... its there already! Cheers!
So, is the nature of what is in your discard public knowledge? Yes, it is.
Therefore, you cannot voluntarily fail a search, because you, your opponent and the game know whether the specific card is in there or not. So, for Night Maintenance, you can't even play the card unless you can take 'up to 3' (which means 1-3) cards of the right types and put them into your deck. No Pokes or Basic Energy in your discard? Well, we know you can't do the card action, so you can't play it.
Your discard is public knowledge. Your deck is not.
David's Confused Pokedad
New Member
And this is one of the reasons why Pokegym Is the Number one Pokemon website.
smacktack15
New Member
Bulbasnore: Thanks, the Head Judge at one of my CC made a bad call and it made my opponent play a Steven's Advice (by using a worthless Night Maintenance), I still won that match but, I just wanted to know
taurik
New Member
Nice article!
One thing I've noticed is the difference in this rule with other games where you can search your deck for a specific card. In that game you can't voluntarily fail the search, and if the search fails the oppenent gets to verify that a valid target for the search isn't in your deck.
One thing I've noticed is the difference in this rule with other games where you can search your deck for a specific card. In that game you can't voluntarily fail the search, and if the search fails the oppenent gets to verify that a valid target for the search isn't in your deck.
master of puppets
New Member
I had already assumed that the contents of my deck were not known to "The Game".
I have failed a search before and when my opponent said something about it I said "me and you both know its in there, but the "The Game" has know idea.".
I have failed a search before and when my opponent said something about it I said "me and you both know its in there, but the "The Game" has know idea.".
Cyrus
Iron Chef - Master Emeritus
The point of Bulbasnore's Quick Ball example was to show that even in an extreme instance where you reveal your ENTIRE DECK (it happens a lot when using Quick Ball), the deck will still "forget" what was in it.
PkmnManiac
New Member
Why would you ask a judge to look at someone else's deck?
No, they can't. Your deck contents are private.
In fact, it used to be ruled the other way, so that's why a number of people are confused about this.
Nice write up!:thumb:
If this is a complete hijack of this subject I apologize, but to the subject of stalling: If a player knows his opponent, from previous encounters, to be an inordinately slow player (due to a physical/mental disability, a desire to be super extra careful, or any other reason) can said player request a judge watch the match from the beginning?
I don't mean this question to sound rude. Please forgive me if it does.
If this is a complete hijack of this subject I apologize, but to the subject of stalling: If a player knows his opponent, from previous encounters, to be an inordinately slow player (due to a physical/mental disability, a desire to be super extra careful, or any other reason) can said player request a judge watch the match from the beginning?
I don't mean this question to sound rude. Please forgive me if it does.
It's not practical, yah? Judges are scarce commodity. That said, if a player says to me a certain player is slow, especially before pairings go up, I'll keep an eye out, and tell my staff. Now, if a player has a disability, I might consider if there is anything I can do to make the match more efficient (pre-seating, shuffle-helper) and I will definitely be watching as I pass by to make that player comfortable... by putting the opponent at ease with an extension, if appropriate.
But, as you note, extensions aren't the main point of the article.
Though the deck is not public knowledge, I think there are times, for example in assessing advantage as some rules ask judges to do, that it is appropriate to look through a players deck. So, the deck is not, I don't think, private in that sense.
However, a judge walking behind you after you play Castaway can't compel you to take a basic energy he or she sees in your deck... because judges (should) know you can voluntarily fail to select a specific card on a deck search... And now, you can point them to the Compendium LvX to verify the record of official PUI rulings on the subject. :thumb:
No, there would be no point.
The deck contents aren't known to the game, so you don't have to take a specific card on a deck search, you could "find none" and turn right around same turn and use another game effect and "find some" and that is perfectly legal.
You still have to search and shuffle. Though you should do those things quickly, so it doesn't contribute evidence of stalling.
NoPoke
Active Member
If all four evolution cards are visible to the game I've always ruled that you can't Wally the active. At all times your deck contains any mix of legal cards that the game rules and current state permit. So under exceptional circumstances you may not be able to play a Wally's Training Method . (in unlimited )
)