Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Gengar SF and Poltergeist

Gowk

Gowk

New Member
I asked this hypothetical question at a cities yesterday, and i am un-certain of their ruling. I will explain why in a second.

Card in play: Gengar SF

Situation:
Player A: Calls Gengar's 'Poltergeist', which allows the Gengar player to look at the opponents hand and calculate damage this way.
Player B: Shows hand, the calculation is there are 2 trainers/supporters/stadiums for 60 damage.
Player A: Begins to place damage on the opposite active.
Player A: "Wait, i think i saw 3 t/s/s in your hand"

Does Player B have the right to deny the re-search.

The way it was ruled was that the hand was public knowledge until the end of the turn, but the attack ends the turn and because the way that was ruled we could also look to Azelf.

I may be missing something, but if the opponents hand becomes public knowledge for the duration of the attack or the time afterwards it could provide a playing advantage and a ruling change on Azelf ( i may be crazy at that point.)

PS: Azelf 'Time Walk' makes your prizes visible to ones self, thus you could argue that you could look at them as many times as you want during your turn since they are or were public.

I may be seriously wrong, but thanks in advance for your time,

Gowk
 
This is beyond the scope of Card Rulings, so you can't get an official ruling from ATRT.

I'll move this to strategies and give my view. If a player tells the judge, 'I think I missed a third trainer in his hand, after we agreed there were two, and now he won't let me see to confirm it,' I think the judge would be WELL within the scope of duty to look in that players hand, to confirm the count one way or another. I would think that the player with that hand would want to re-show the opponent, rather than involve a judge in something that might, on investigation, require any kind of penalty.
 
bulbasnore said:
This is beyond the scope of Card Rulings, so you can't get an official ruling from ATRT.

I'll move this to strategies and give my view. If a player tells the judge, 'I think I missed a third trainer in his hand, after we agreed there were two, and now he won't let me see to confirm it,' I think the judge would be WELL within the scope of duty to look in that players hand, to confirm the count one way or another. I would think that the player with that hand would want to re-show the opponent, rather than involve a judge in something that might, on investigation, require any kind of penalty.
Click to expand...

Very informative response.

You get 2 Guru Points. :biggrin:
 
Personally, I would call a judge and ask them to look at the other player's hand to ascertain exactly how many T/Su/St were in my opponent's hand. The thing I see here is that if they don't want you to check so badly, then they must have something in there that they don't want you to know about, and it's most likely extra T/Su/St that they had hidden behind other cards to hope you hadn't noticed.
 
If I were on the recieving end of the Poltergeist and my opponent said "Wait, I thought I saw a third one", I would lay out all of my hand cards on the table so he could clearly see all of them.

Anything less is unsportsmanlike.

And I prefer losing to being penalized.
 
If I were a judge in that situation, I would look at the players hand to check if there's really a third trainer. That way, I know if the opponent saw something else that he wanted a better look at (non trainer, such as a pokemon), or if he actually saw a third trainer. If there is a third trainer, I would make him show his hand. If not, I don't see why his hand need be shown.
 
Saying "the hand is public knowledge until the end of the turn" doesn't get to the heart of the matter. It makes a "rule" that doesn't need to exist.

What needs to be ensured is that attacks are done correctly and that the damage from that attack is correct.
Part of this attack is that the player gets to look at the opponent's hand.
Now, if the hand was flashed and a fair look was not given, I would mandate that a new, correct look could be taken.
On the other hand, if enough time was given for the hand to be seen, but the player was focusing on an interesting card and then forgot to count the trainers, I wouldn't allow another look, but I would ensure that the proper amount of damage was done by looking myself. This is a Game State issue. The proper amount of damage must be done, and if the defending player was allowing the wrong damage to be done intentionally, he would have a very serious problem with me.
Look up "cheating" in the Penalty Guidelines!
 
PokePop said:
Saying "the hand is public knowledge until the end of the turn" doesn't get to the heart of the matter. It makes a "rule" that doesn't need to exist.

What needs to be ensured is that attacks are done correctly and that the damage from that attack is correct.
Part of this attack is that the player gets to look at the opponent's hand.
Now, if the hand was flashed and a fair look was not given, I would mandate that a new, correct look could be taken.
On the other hand, if enough time was given for the hand to be seen, but the player was focusing on an interesting card and then forgot to count the trainers, I wouldn't allow another look, but I would ensure that the proper amount of damage was done by looking myself. This is a Game State issue. The proper amount of damage must be done, and if the defending player was allowing the wrong damage to be done intentionally, he would have a very serious problem with me.
Look up "cheating" in the Penalty Guidelines!
Click to expand...

Well that clears it up nicely!

You've earned 2 Guru Points :biggrin:
 
PokePop said:
You're giving Guru points to members of TC for answering questions? Where are we going to put them all?
Click to expand...

Right next to our Prof Points!

Rogue Archetype said:
READ .... THE.... STICKY!!
Click to expand...

Eeeww?


Yah, "wait, let me see your hand again", "wait, what was that again?" is quite different than, "hold it, there was a third trainer". The other player is going to need call the judge if he keeps getting asked to rereveal with no good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top