Banisher of Light

[IceFire2050]

Hey. I read the ruling on Banisher of Light vs Emergency Provisions which is.

[Re: Emergency Provisions] While "Banisher of the Light" is face-up on the field, you cannot activate "Emergency Provisions" since it is impossible to send cards to the Graveyard.

I was wondering... Is this ruling also applied to cards like Polymerization and the LV monsters?

 

[Tkwiget]

GAMEPLAY RULES for FUSION MONSTER CARDS
During your turn, if you have the Spell Card "Polymerization" and the Fusion-Material Monsters required to form a Fusion Monster, either on the field or in your hand, you can perform a Fusion Summon by activating "Polymerization"(Special Summon, p.23).

When a Fusion is performed, select the Appropriate Fusion Monster Card from your Fusion Deck and place it face-up on an open Monster Card Zone space in either Attack or Defense Position. The 2 (or more) Fusion-Material Monster Cards that have been fused, as well as the "Polymerization" Spell Card used to perform the Fusion, are sent to the Graveyard.


Sounds like it's saying that you fuse the monsters first, summon the Fusion, then send the material to the Graveyard....

You still send during resolution.

Also, that isn't what Polymerization says but whatever. I won't complain. XD

Ok Twig, obviously the video games are wrong. I mean heaven forbid that I actually questioned a video game ruling and then found out why it worked that way in the game. Yes because obviously the video games are ALWAYS INCORRECT.

Sarcasism isn't really needed. They aren't even good sources to answer rulings. That's why comparing the ruling of a situation in the video game to what's being discussed in threads like this one don't ever provide solid information to go off. I even vaguly recall you mentioning Michizure working in the Damage Step in WC2006. In reality, it doesn't. So rulings in the video games don't help game mechanic discussions at all and are often ignored.

 

[Tiso]

The 2006 Video Game is as close as we have gotten rulings and gameplay wise. I am not going to just toss it out the window because you guys get all into a hussy fit over rulings in it. Sometimes rulings in it are wrong, but to say not to based any ruling from it as fact is just plain retarded. Obviously they must be wrong when you activate Call of the Haunted and the monster is removed from the field, the Trap Card staying on the field is clearly wrong. Seriously get over yourselves people.

 

[skey23]

Obviously they must be wrong when you activate Call of the Haunted and the monster is removed from the field, the Trap Card staying on the field is clearly wrong.

Ok, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here, but just in case.

If the monster being targeted by "Call of the Haunted" is removed from the field by any other method than being DESTROYED, "Call of the Haunted" will remain on the field meaninglessly.


Oh...and it's not just US that are saying that abou the video games. UDE says that to the Judges as well.

 

[Tiso]

Skey, obviously that would have been sarcastic when it comes to Call of the Haunted. Do you take me for a troglodyte? There are ruling problems in the 2006 video game (Michizure, Hydrogeddon, and so on) but to say not to hold any and every ruling in the game as fact is retarded, no matter what UDE says. Personally, UDE really has no say when it comes to rulings other than that they interpret what Konami gives and makes sense of it for the TCG. A few inconsistencies should be held against the thousands of other rulings in the game that are right. Am I saying I will use 2006 as the holy bible for the rulings? No. But I also will not dismiss what I see in there unless of course I know it is wrong (I.E. Hydrogeddon working on tokens).

 

[masterwoo0]

Oh...and it's not just US that are saying that abou the video games. UDE says that to the Judges as well.

To those who dont want to listen, its like trying to place a warning on a pack of cigarettes that "Smoking is bad for your health".

For those that do smoke, they dont care, so it falls on deaf ears. For those that dont, they take it as the warning it was meant to be.

Videogames are a good source of entertainment, and have never been a good source of Rulings Enforcement. Sure, we can get as close as possible with them, but I feel confident when I say that if you can put a cheat code in to have 12 monsters on the field (exaggeration), that says a lot about the way the game can sway from as close as the real thing to as far away as possible.

A videogame has flaws that can be taken advantage of at anytime, and without knowing how things are supposed to be, how are you going to spot when it isnt?

 

[Tiso]

So can the actual TCG itself. Anyone can easily take advantage of the game. No? Play a kid who has no idea about rulings, erratas, and so on. Not to mention Woo, you comparission is way off base. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that smoking is bad. At least when it comes to YGO Video Game rulings, only some are bad/wrong etc while the rest should not be blackballed because of the actions of the few.

 

[Tkwiget]

So can the actual TCG itself. Anyone can easily take advantage of the game. No? Play a kid who has no idea about rulings, erratas, and so on.

Two completely different things.

A video game is a pre-programmed device that has the rules built in which automatically enforces at the highest ability it can; based on its programming that is.

Playing an inexperienced player and knowingly take advantage of their ignorance of game mechanics doesn't have much relationship to people abusing incorrect rulings in video games. You have no rule enforcing factor when playing someone else in person. With that factor left out, you're left with two items (inexperienced player and WC2006) that have only one thing in common -- they're both about Yu-Gi-Oh!.

In a nut shell, it's like comparing applies and oranges. Their both fruit, just two different kinds.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Skey, obviously that would have been sarcastic when it comes to Call of the Haunted. Do you take me for a troglodyte? There are ruling problems in the 2006 video game (Michizure, Hydrogeddon, and so on) but to say not to hold any and every ruling in the game as fact is retarded, no matter what UDE says. Personally, UDE really has no say when it comes to rulings other than that they interpret what Konami gives and makes sense of it for the TCG. A few inconsistencies should be held against the thousands of other rulings in the game that are right. Am I saying I will use 2006 as the holy bible for the rulings? No. But I also will not dismiss what I see in there unless of course I know it is wrong (I.E. Hydrogeddon working on tokens).

There is no comparison. The Video Game is not like an inexperienced player, or a cheating player or a mistaken player. It is error carved in stone. Just because a handful or even a majority of things work the way they should, the fact that you never know where it's going to be wrong or right make it an unreliable source to say the least. It's not a like a person who gives you faulty information. That person can be corrected, can learn his mistake or be exposed as a cheater or disseminator of misinformation. The video game will always be mistaken, and you won't be able to convince it otherwise. And as flexible as Konami is with their rulings a mechanics, it makes it that much less reliable because it will never change with changing winds. Its flaws are cemented, and as such, make it one of the most unreliable sources of info that one could ever hope to obtain. Who want's a flawed database of information when trying to ascertain the truth?

Also, the word "retarded" in the context you've used it is not an acceptable way to make a counter point. And you wonder why people consider your posts aggressive? Please do not use that kind of insulting terminology again. Consider that an official warning.

 

[ancient_duelist]

Okay, I understand and, for the most part, agree with the edict not to use video games for rulings. That's why I always put the disclaimer in my message when I do it anyway.

Having said that, I think it is valid to point out how cards work in WC 2006 and especially in Yu-Gi-Oh! Online. WC 2006 is, from what I have heard, the most accurate video game Konami has ever produced. Still, it is static and that is a disadvantage.

Yu-Gi-Oh! Online however is another matter. There are programmers at work constantly correcting bugs in the game (not as fast as many would like, but they are trying). This is Konami's flagship product and I believe they are working to make it as accurate as possible. Does the game have bugs? Sure. Does this mean it can not be used as an indicator of how Konami may think certain effects should work? I don't think so.

I will simply point out that Konami has now apparently errated Last Will in the OCG so that it should work exactly the way it does work in the online game.

You can't use the games for rulings, but that does not mean the games are not valuable sources for discussion of how things should/could work in the real life game.

 

[anthonyj]

You are right. I gained valuable insight into basic game mechanics from Power of Chaos when I first got into trying to dissect the rulings. It isn't that the game can't be a tool for getting an understanding of how things work, it is more that the game isn't going to be an "Official" source of rulings. Thus if something is buggy in the game how would you know that isn't the way it is supposed to work.

Yes, use the game to see how things might work. No, don't use the game to dispute how things should or do work. Does that make sense? We are all trying to make sure we get the most accurate picture of how everything operates. The game is not going to confirm or deny anything that is questionable because it is not an "Official source" for these game mechanics and questions. Thus it is infinitely more reliable to reference "Official rulings" when dissecting possibilities than it is to state "this is how it works in WC2006", because that has no verifiable bearing on how it should work in the actual TCG.

 

[ancient_duelist]

Yes, use the game to see how things might work. No, don't use the game to dispute how things should or do work. Does that make sense?

Sure. That's why I said:

You can't use the games for rulings, but that does not mean the games are not valuable sources for discussion of how things should/could work in the real life game.

I think we're in agreement on this.