Nobleman of Crosssout problem

[WarriorKing007]

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?

 

[skey23]

I wouldn't say that. I would say both players remove any copies from their own decks first, THEN they hand their deck to the opponent so the opponent can verify no other copies exist in the deck.

 

[John Danker]

The way it's worded one could see it as meaning the owner of the deck plucks them out and the opponent insures they've done so....or as you stated, the opponent takes them out. Personally the word "insure" to me means that's it's already been done and the action is to verify that action.

 

[krazykidpsx]

so either way is fine right?

 

[John Danker]

Let me put it another way. If you fail to remove additional copies from your opponent's deck regardless of weather they checked it or not you'll be held accountable as well.

Which way is right officially? Good question for the judge's list. By all means, please ask.

 

[masterwoo0]

I think its better to let the owner first remove, then the opponent verify. That way, the opponent cant claim that they are taking so long because they are making sure there are no more, just so they can study the opponents Deck. I mean, if the turn player Noblemans Merchant, how many more can be in the non turn players deck if they already took out 2?

And as far as the turn player is concerned, if he removes 3 from his deck, and has more than that, well, it should be a automatic Disqualification for Cheating. There's no way you could have 4 of the same card, and still have the correct amount of other cards in your deck and side deck combined.

As far as removing less than 3, then you have to remember that the effect only removes from the Deck, not Hand or Graveyard, so it is possible for one player to have them all in hand, or more than 1 in hand and 1 in the Graveyard.

 

[krazykidpsx]

I think its better to let the owner first remove, then the opponent verify. That way, the opponent cant claim that they are taking so long because they are making sure there are no more, just so they can study the opponents Deck. I mean, if the turn player Noblemans Merchant, how many more can be in the non turn players deck if they already took out 2?

And as far as the turn player is concerned, if he removes 3 from his deck, and has more than that, well, it should be a automatic Disqualification for Cheating. There's no way you could have 4 of the same card, and still have the correct amount of other cards in your deck and side deck combined.

As far as removing less than 3, then you have to remember that the effect only removes from the Deck, not Hand or Graveyard, so it is possible for one player to have them all in hand, or more than 1 in hand and 1 in the Graveyard.

Its the less than 3 that makes people think about checking the opponent.

and your right JD we should ask the peeps at the list.