Taking this article series in a slightly different direction, we wanted to address a common and contentious rulings issue that has arisen out of the Sensei Deck changes for the Retro Format.
The Trick: Can you perform Hercule’s Amazing Techniques after a Majin Buu’s Fury has been played?
When we look at the CRD, there is actually a clear definition of the actions that can be performed in the “Attacker Attacks” phase:
What to do in an Attack Phase.
You can do one of the following things in an Attack Phase:
1. Play a card that can perform an attack from your hand and use it to attack your
opponent with a physical or energy attack.
2. Use a card you have in play that can perform an attack to attack your opponent.
3. Use a Non-Combat card for its effects and then discard it after use.
4. Play a card, use its effects and then discard it.
5. Use a Personality power. If a personality has a power that you can use during your
Attack Phase, you may use it.
6. Perform a Final Physical Attack.
7. Pass.
So using this breakdown, we can see that Majin Buu’s Fury allows you to do #1,2,6 and 7. Personality powers and non-combat cards that perform attacks would fall under #2, so we must ask ourselves what category would Hercule’s Amazing Techniques (HAT) fall under. It would not fall under #1, since the card in your hand (HAT) does not actually perform an attack. As per the card text, you are playing another card from your Sensei Deck. HAT would not be a card in play, so it’s not #2 and it goes without saying that HAT is not #6 or #7. HAT would best fit under #4, a card that has an effect and then is discarded (being removed from game is part of its effect in this case). Because it does not perform an attack, it could not be played.
Further we must consider the probability of failure for the HAT to perform an attack. The most simple example is canceling the HAT with a Trunks Energy Sphere. If you sphere the HAT, the action instantly becomes illegal. Sure there are attacks that can be sphered like Red Double Strike and Namekian’s Strike, but those are still attacks that can be performed. Further, with Retro Rules you could simply fail the search of your Sensei Deck, allowing you to make the play illegal at any time. This means that special rules would have to be in effect for HAT that you could not “fail the search” when using it after hat, but then that opens up other issues that we’ll get into in the next section.
It has been ruled that Sensei Deck is not common knowledge in the game, meaning you don’t have to reveal its contents to your opponent. This means that when you play HAT after Fury, your opponent has to essentially trust that you have a legal target in your Sensei Deck. At this point, the play is contingent on one player’s personal knowledge of game state and their own deck’s content that cannot be confirmed by the opponent. So even if we have the “cannot fail the search” ruling, there has to be yet an additional ruling that the card cannot be played unless there is a legal target in your Sensei Deck, a situation that the opponent cannot verify at all. So this leads us to the most relevant card for precedence outside this scenario: Android 16 Lv. 4.
Admittedly, this card is incredibly unlikely to see play, but it provides valuable insight into how HAT works. Like HAT, this power doesn’t directly perform an attack and can fail (remember, HAT can be sphered or just fail the search). So even though the likelihood of Android 16’s power failing is much higher than HAT’s, in game terms they are both cards that may result in an attack but also have a probability of failure. So can Android 16 use his power after a Fury, since like HAT, there’s a chance it may result in an attack.
Let’s go back to the whole Sensei Deck not being common knowledge issue. So using the logic that I know what’s in my Sensei Deck and you don’t, I’m allowed to use HAT after Fury because I (and not you) know that there is a legal target there. So how about Android 16? What if I also know that based on the contents of my discard pile, only cards that can perform physical attacks are left in my deck. So can I just tell you “I know the contents of my deck (and not you), so the power will not fail” and use Android 16’s power? Does my personal knowledge of my deck’s content that you cannot verify, allow me to perform actions that I normally could not? Am I simply allowed to use Android 16’s power, like HAT, because there is a chance, like HAT, that it could end in an attack? The answer is no.
Bottom Line: Hercule’s Amazing Techniques has a probability of failure and in itself does not perform an attack. Personal knowledge of your deck’s content does not allow you to override rules or restrictions placed upon you by Majin Buu’s Fury. Hercule’s Amazing Techniques cannot be played after a Majin Buu’s Fury.
Trick: Busted (whatever that means in this situation).
Thank you very much for putting this to rest for Retro events. I very much highly agree with your logic 100%.
*claps*
Yay! Now I have a using question: is the mechanic of placing in play different than playing from your hand. Example would be : I EDQ and then the following turn my opponent drops Black Water Confusion Drill. EDQ says place into play, and the drill state that balls can’t be played. So is there a difference between placing an playing. Thanks for the help.
Placing into play and playing from hand are two different things. Joey Dicarlo and I used that difference at DieCon 06 with Krillin Lv 3 CS to chain Momentum 3 turns in a row. “Playing” a card is clearly defined as using it from hand, and paying all/any costs needed to do so. Placing into play is something that another card effect will do to “cheat” a card into play to bypass cost/requirements. Krillin Lv 3, Hero’s Lucky Break, Energy Lob. They all get around Momentum’s clause of “Can’t play Non-Combat cards during your next turn”.
Not sure how they’ll rule EDQ/Black Water Confusion Drill though. I think like most, Ive actually played it as though you cant EDQ a ball into play with it out, but looking at the logical difference, you probably should be able to EDQ a ball into play.
This is objectively wrong for a number of reasons:
1. Majin Buu’s Fury does not say what you cannot do, simply what you must. It does not say that you cannot use actions 3, 4, or 5 of the Attacker Attacks phase, simply that your Attacker Attacks Phase must end in an attack. These are different things, and I don’t understand how it hasn’t sunk into people yet. HAT allows for two different actions to happen during your phase, one being HAT itself and other other being the attack it can perform, which would meet the requirements of MBF, so that’s just wrong.
2. You completely brushed off the Namekian Strike/Red Double Strike issue, which is totally inconsistent. Getting either of them sphered means you ATTEMPTED to perform an attack, but didn’t because an opponent stopped you from doing so. This means you did not pass, but also did not perform an attack, which means that every time you play one of those two cards, there is a PROBABILITY of failure to meet MBF’s “requirement,” which is exactly why you won’t allow HAT. This is literally the same thing as HAT, and ruling that they can’t be played because of a theoretical failure is stupid.
3. Android 16 and HAT are different cards, but this is the closest thing you’ve been to right. I think the difference is you have the ability to check, and if there isn’t a valid attack in your sensei deck, and you play HAT anyways, you’re kind of just cheating…
Of these 3 issues, I think the theoretical failure issue is the must valid – you are saying “well there’s a CHANCE you can’t meet the requirement, so now you can’t even try (unless you’re using Namekian Strike or Red Double Strike – then we’ll ignore it because you tried harder).
I think the correct ruling is that if you fail to perform an attack with an action, you simply just “Passed” for all intents and purposes, because MBF forces you to either be successful in performing the attack or simply Pass.
Ugh.
Let’s keep this civil.
1) I’ve heard this argument before, and quite honestly I’ve never understood it because the act of playing HAT is not an attack, nor is HAT itself an attack or performing an attack at any point. HAT is a tutor. It’s a case of putting the cart before the horse. You can’t play the non-attack that is HAT in order to eventually play another card that can attack. Any way you slice it, HAT is a tutor that does not perform an attack and cannot be played under Fury.
2) The difference between the Strikes and HAT/A16 is that the Strikes are attacks you can perform. There is no probability there, an attack will always occur. I probably should not have included TES in the example of probability since your opponent’s actions are irrelevant to your own when it comes to playing a card in this situation. The probability of failure refers more towards the probability of an attack occurring from your non-attack tutor abilities. Playing the Strikes are attacks, and even if they are sphered (thus no attacks even being performed) no illegal action has taken place. Playing the HAT or using 16s power is not an attack, they are tutors (not sure if thats the right word for 16) so any TES or ability to cancel those powers would be irrelevant to the actuality that they themselves are not attacks. I should not have thrown in any references to TES when explaining the probability of failure, so I apologize for the confusion.
3) Not sure what to say to this after clarifying the TES/Strikes part. Keep in mind that there’s no way to regulate playing HAT when no legal targets are available, and one could simply and legally just fail the search (no cheating involved).
I’ve always read the majin buu card saying perform an attack or pass during each combat phase. If the card doesn’t say physical/energy attack than its clearly not an attack regardless of the card type. It says what the card does right on the card as clear as day so it was always a simple thing. Most problems I see are people angry about how unstoppable and unpreventable work with cards like chiaotzus psychic halt and cards that stop attacks.
1. Majin Buu’s Fury does not say what you cannot do. Anywhere. It says what you must do. You must perform an attack or pass. The result of Hercule’s Amazing Technique can’t be classified as JUST a tutor, because it essential breaks the game rules – it not only tutors, but it allows you to PERFORM AN ATTACK, which meets the requirements of MBF.
The word cannot, nor the conjunction “can’t,” is found anywhere on Majin Buu’s Fury. It’s not in the CRD, either. The card doesn’t care about what comes first between the cart or the horse, it just cares that both the cart and the horse are both there before your attack phase ends. You guys are essentially reading the words “can’t do anything but perform an attack or pass” into the wording of the card with this ruling, when in reality those words aren’t there.
2. How is an attack occurring. Trunks Energy Sphere turns the card into a blank text box if I’m not mistaken, so you’ve essentially just played a blank Combat Card. That seems like the same thing HAT does when it fails to find. If there is no attack being performed, an illegal action has taken place, because you did not pass, but you did not perform an attack, because the card you just played is now blank. Majin Buu’s Fury ALSO does not say anywhere that you must ATTEMPT to perform an attack, or Pass. Just that you perform an attack or pass. So I don’t really see how this isn’t an illegal action.
3. And there’s clearly a way to fix the “failure to find” part of HAT – put it in the CRD. You guys have already taken plenty of liberties with it, I don’t see what one more would hurt.
And I don’t mean to sound abrasive or uncivil with this. I like you guys a lot an appreciate what you do, but I think constantly disagreeing with the direction has gotten me increasingly frustrated, especially since the ruling has changed between Gencon and this Spring, and the ruling cost me a game in the top 4 of the North Kai (that I might not have won anyways).
If you don’t listen to me for ANYTHING found above, maybe you’ll at least listen to me from a policy perspective – the Majin Buu issue everyone has complained about becomes a worse problem with this ruling.
Combo is worse, decks running toolbox HAT to get out of combat in control are now much worse. You’ve already made a couple of significant rule changes (no DPR and Sensei Decks being open season) that have severely restricted what type of stuff gets played in the meta, and you’ve made dozens of cards, most of which strictly help beatdown… (Baba being an obvious exception – but she scoops to MBF anyways)
I really think you guys should reconsider this, if not because the ruling is incorrect, then at least fix the card in the CRD because of what the ruling means to the meta.
I didn’t mean to make it sound like you were uncivil, just a general warning to everyone, including myself who tends to get hotheaded from time to time. We don’t want this to turn into the unwelcoming community environment that has cropped up in past online communities for the game.
You do bring up very good points, and there are arguments on both sides. Good arguments too. And I hate to make this sound like we’re just sweeping everything you brought up under the rug, but based on discussions between Garrett, Chippy and myself (that have been going on for months), we feel that this was the intent of Majin Buu’s Fury. I tried to be as descriptive as possible and outline many different scenarios and similar rulings to make this an entertaining read of an article, but our final decision came down to HAT not performing an attack itself. Yes there are semantics involved that can be interpreted in different ways, so it came down to which way we felt was best looking at card intent and all the other factors I discussed in the article. The game unfortunately is not the best written or most consistent piece of work.
As for the changing rulings, they are all coming through Garrett and myself from now on. Garrett will be the full-time judge at the next Gen Con event, which should alleviate some of the issues we’ve had in years past. As for events outside of Gen Con, we do not sanction those at all so we have no control over format and rulings at those events. A ruling made at one does not necessarily reflect the ruling we would make. For consistency, I believe they follow our rules, but if someone wanted to host their own events where this issue is ruled differently or anything else that differs from how Retro runs their events is incorporated then they are free to do so.
As for Buu, we’re working on that but no “obvious” solution is out there. We’re testing several options.
And yeah, most of our cards do help beatdown mostly because we want our games to be more fast paced. Many people erroneously believe that Garrett and I make virtual cards to somehow help the tournament environment. In some cases that might be true, but overall Garrett and I play the game for fun so we just try to come up with fun things to do and decks we think will be interesting to play or watch on the stream. I am somewhat disappointed in how competitive our format has become, simply because all Garrett and I want to do is screw around with decks we couldn’t play a decade ago. We just want to have fun. We try to help the competitive environment a little, but it does get a little tiring when we face a lot of mean spirited comments and criticism, when really all we are doing is sharing with the community the silly cards and rulings we make in our living room to play in our living room. I can’t tell you how many messages, texts and emails I get in the days following streams from folks wanting to point out all our play mistakes and deck/card/personality choices. Those folks just don’t get that we think it’s fun to get drunk and play with Garlic Jr. for no stakes whatsoever. We enjoy most of the attention and again, we know that we’ve somehow become the leaders that the community follows, but really we’re just two guys with a website who decide to play a certain way and let people join in.
Well said.
The thing that flipped me on this was the whole idea of failing the search. Because if you could play it during MBF, failing the search would make HAT a get out of jail free card against MBF.
And as we all know (now), nothing gets around MBF. Not even Power Block, right Ryan?
The thing about this is that MBF doesn’t actually you can’t do things that are NOT attacking or passing, it just says that you have to do one of those during your phase. So I think an argument based on the possibility of failure is a very good one, but saying that you are doing something the card does not allow you to do is something I don’t think I can get behind because it doesn’t actually say that you can’t do anything in particular. It’s like… is anyone going to argue that you couldnt still play energy boost or risky maneuver if you attack after MBF even though it isn’t an attack?
Also, I’ve decided that HAT/MBF is the gay marriage debate of our dead card game, and all of you are racists if you disagree with me.
I support your rights to marry MBF or HAT (or both at the same time if you are a Mormon).
That’s all I’ve ever really wanted…
majin buu and hercule have a lovely partnership. they dont care about gender or race, or species for that matter. they over came everything. looks, mental capabilities, income, sexuality, and even their pasts to be with each other. anyone who looks down upon them should be ashamed of themselves.
I’m not sure what term is actually the proper term here, but it definitely isn’t racist. =P
It won’t let me put pictures in here, so…
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/132/thatsthejoke.jpg
😉
Citing an Austrian when talking about racism? Really? =P
lol that’s what I was thinking in my head, in his accent. His ancestry is cursory (also he’s not real)
This is the correct ruling, this is how it was always played in the real game. Well done on making this right. Now please add Red Power Slam to the article so people don’t start having insane thoughts thinking that it might be able to be used after MBF just because you guys didn’t mention it.
Since the counterargument for the correct ruling hinges on TES on Red Double Strike/Boomstick/Namekian Strike and Startled on Blue Ki Build Up/Blue Stretch Kick violating MBF you all should just make it clear that MBF says “you must use a card that performs an attack or pass” since that is the obvious intent of the card (and how it was always played until an incorrect ruling was made at Gencon), and makes it clear that HAT/RPS/A16 can’t be used and that cards that can be negated (despite the fact that they would perform an attack if not negated) can be used.
Ruling on intent is a terrible precedent when you can fix it. You can’t really judge intent of a card in a dead card game, and the counterargument goes WAY beyond the TES stuff (explained ad nauseum above)
This has been done to death for so long, I can’t believe people are still doing it. There’s more than enough evidence to support both sides depending on what your particular brand of interpretation of rules and wordings is, the only objectively correct ruling is that the card is too vague and needs to be clarified/reworded. Saying anything else is a waste of time.
That’s not totally correct; Retro posting this article to clarify THEIR interpretation was needed because there are multiple folks in the game that look to their format, CRD and rulings as a guide for running events and now there is an “Official Retro” stance for those people and events (even if the events are not “affiliated” with Retro, they are definitely inspired by).
I think Joel makes the best argument and The article has holes and rulings based on intent. Joel’s case is all from the rulebook and no intent is used. Just my 2 cents.
So it is your argument that cards should not work as intended?
Cards should work as written. The game is littered with cards that were so poorly conceived/written that they had to be erratad several times before working the way they were intended to, and they were always ruled to work as written, not as intended. My personal favorite being the great Jolting Slash fiasco of ’03.
Wow such heated words over a simple card ruling, (I agree with you on this) it doesn’t attack but let’s you get a card that does, that’s kinda like playing a card that lets you draw a card, can you play that if you know the top card is an attack, no so why is these any differnt. “Well cause I wana play it” get over it, it’s just the way it works.
Sorry guys I just had to say it, btw love the article keep up the good work and great cards; cause it is all about having fun.