Banisher of the Light vs. Grave Protector

[Gendo Ikari]

Banisher of the Light
As long as this card remains face-up on the field, any card sent to the Graveyard is removed from play instead.

Grave Protector
As long as this card remains face-up on the field, monsters that are destroyed as a result of battle are returned to the owner's Deck instead of being sent to the Graveyard. The Deck is then shuffled.

Where do monsters destroyed in battle go if both of these cards are face up on the field at the same time? The way I read it, they never hit the graveyard, so they're not removed from play. Is this correct?

 

[masterwoo0]

And that's what makes it hard to swallow.

If Grave Protector is alone on the field, "it" would prevent any card destroyed in battle from being sent to the Graveyard, so why would introducing Banisher (especially since the ruling isnt specific about which one was on the field first) suddenly take precedence?

 

[skey23]

My logic is asking this:

Even if it's continuous it still states that a card must be sent to the graveyard, meaning it made it to the graveyard. Because if it's in the graveyard, it had to have been sent there by some means..

The 'replacement' effect never allows the card to be 'sent to the graveyard' because it replaces the action with 'sends it to the deck', or 'removes it from play'.

By no means am I arguing with you are saying you are wrong, or your logic is flawed.
I am just stating how my logic is trying to resolve this 'Konami said so' ruling.

 

[StRiKe_NiNjA]

Maybe... Banisher of the Light is simply too PoWeRfUL... Maybe Konami thought Banisher of the Light was more powerful than Grave Protector because Banisher of the Light has 100 ATK.... scary isn't it?

Isn't that the logic behind the ruling? Yea, that has to be the reason... Maybe it is... Maybe it's because Banisher of the Light could poke to death Grave Protector anyday if both were in attack mode.

Konami Said So...

 

[skey23]

LOL...that is FuNnY!

 

[StRiKe_NiNjA]

Haha but really this what I think.


Grave Protector, Yes, it is a Continuous Effect monster, but it's much like Dark Ruler Ha Des. (think about it)

Banisher of the Light, Yes, is too a Continuous Effect monster, but it's much like Iron Chef.


When Dark Ruler Ha Des destroys a monster as a result of battle, the effect is negated, but the effect of negating the effect of monster destroyed in battle is never "activated", it's just sort of somewhat gets applied.

Now, when monsters are destroyed in battle while Grave Protector is face-up on the field, they are sent to the graveyard first then are placed back into the deck and shuffled.

Now read the ruling on Banisher of the Light:
Effects that trigger when cards are sent to the Graveyard, such as "Sangan", "Witch of the Black Forest", "Mystic Tomato", "The Immortal of Thunder" and "Last Will", will not activate.

How can Witch of the Black Forest not activate here? It was sent to the graveyard right? The it was later removed by Banisher of the Light and the effect doesn't apply.

See my point? Grave Protector won't even have a chance to completely resolve.

When a monster is destroyed in battle while Grave Protector face-up on the field, the effect of Grave Protector can be applied. But if Banisher of the Light is on the field, the moment the card hits the graveyard, it gets removed from play, and Grave Protector is over powered and the effect of this card doesn't resolve completely.

That's my logic that supports that Banisher of the Light is just more PoWeRfUL....

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Now read the ruling on Banisher of the Light:
Effects that trigger when cards are sent to the Graveyard, such as "Sangan", "Witch of the Black Forest", "Mystic Tomato", "The Immortal of Thunder" and "Last Will", will not activate.

"¦

See my point? Grave Protector won't even have a chance to completely resolve.

The same ruling exists under Grave Protector:

Effects like "Mystic Tomato", etc., are not activated while "Grave Protector" is face-up on the field.

So cards are not Placed in the graveyard first.

 

[StRiKe_NiNjA]

lol man, i see your point.

Is there any real logic to this? Let us end the misery and suffering from this Thread.

The real reason must be that Konami has made Banisher of the Light more powerful than Grave Protector is because Banisher of the Light has 100 ATK points.

Or it could be one those Konami Said So rulings?

At first I thought it was just one of those SEGOC chain issues but then remember what if each Player control one Grave Protector face-up and the other Player Banisher of the Light face-up? and vice-versca? or if one controled both monsters face-up? Thats what i was thinking afterwards till i looked up the ruling when it's stated if both were face-up, the monsters destroyed in battle is removed instead. And it provided no explanation on how that would work.

Isn't this one of those Thread we could post on the Judge's List forum or whatever?

 

[Melchiah76]

....and soon, protector of the graveyard will be unchained and starts to run ammock the world of yugi....

like if that could happen.

the way i see it, ppl, is that if both monsters (bare with me, im not a judge nor someone who knows all the rules, it's just a logical aproach to the problem..maybe even could separate it from the discussion) are on the field at the same time, no one takes preference..the way i see it (and i think it was pointed out along the way)is that if something is destroyed as a result of battle, the protector would "not allow" that monster to enter the graveyard, so banisher would not get the chance to "kick it out of the premices"....on the other hand, if one monster or card (and this is where it gets confusing), is sent to the graveyard, ....let me make it a kids aproach...only the "spirit" of the card goes to the graveyard, and for that, the protector can't deny that "spirit" from entering the graveyard, but in entering the gaveyard, the "big bad banisher" will kick him out of the premices for good.

like i said before....its a child aproach (my nephewe plays, and thats the way he sees it). i know that in the end, my logic means a bowl of beans to konami, but, if i was to explain the "why" in the case, i would choose that approach.

 

[StRiKe_NiNjA]

This is the way I see it. I've given it some thought. I think the real logic to this really is a Continuous Effect over a Continuous Effect.

Just think about Final Attack Orders vs Level Area - Limit B. The most recent activated will be the one to take priority:

Player A:summoned Archfiend Soldier

Archfiend is then switch to Attack (even though he was summoned in attack position) Final Attack Orders, then Defense Level Area Limit B.

--------

Now I'm not saying or comparing Grave Protector and Banisher of the Light will take priority, the example below should show that it doesn't matter which or whom was summoned first or second, or who controls whom, but priority when their effects activates and one over powers the other.

Grave Protector is much like Dark Ruler Ha Des.

Banisher of the Light is still much like Iron Chef.


Banisher of the Light is face-up
Grave Protector is face-up

When a monster is destroyed as a result of battle, the effect Grave Protector is in a manner of being applied so Grave Protector is ready to send a monster back into the deck instead of the Graveyard. This point, Banisher of the Light can remove a card from played when a card is being sent to the Graveyard. So Banisher would take priority and remove a monster.

I know that Banisher of the Light and Grave Protector effects both activates at the sametime if a monster were to be destroyed in battle, but i think that the effect of Grave Protector would sort of give it an edge for its effect to be applied since a monster was destroyed in battle, right after Banisher of the Light would kick in.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

For every bottle there is a cap.
There is a cap for every bottle.

Did i just say the same thing twice?

No i didn't actually:
For every bottle there is a cap means: Bottle A has cap a that will Fit on it, botlle b has cap B taht will fit on it. And so on.

There is a cap for every bottle means:
There is an Omnipotent cap that fits on bottle A, B, C, D, E "¦ "¦ Ω

Now let's look at the card text"

Banisher of the Light
any card sent to the Graveyard is removed from play instead.


Grave Protector
monsters "¦ are returned to the owner's Deck instead of being sent to the Graveyard.

Now let's jsut switch Grave Protector's effect to that of Banisher to make it easier:
cards are removed from play instead of being sent to the graveyard


Analogy
Now caps fit onto the bottle, jsut as removed from play fits on to the graveyard (sealing the graveyard)

So we get

BoL any card sent to the Graveyard is removed from play instead
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bottle . . . . . . . . . Cap
For . . . . . .every . . . . . . .Bottle . there is a. .Cap

GP cards are removed from play instead of being sent to the graveyard
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bottle
There . . . . .is . . .a . .Cap . . . . . . .for . . . .every . . . . . . Bottle

Now if you had 2 caps in your hand.. the omnipotent one, and the one for a single bottle, and you had a bottle in your hand, wouldn't you try caping the bottle with the Single-bottle cap?--as not to waste the more valuable omnipotent one. Save the omnipotent one for when it matters.

 

[masterwoo0]

For every bottle there is a cap.
There is a cap for every bottle.

Sometimes less is more, and more is worse.

I could sit here and write the whole equation for why a displaced electron in the K Shell of an atom produces a given Kilo-electron Volt of Energy when struck by an accelerated electron and how the resultant is called "Collisional Radiation"

or

I could sum it up to just say, "When a passing electron strikes an orbiting electron, it produces a given amount of energy called "Radiation".


The more confusing the answer, the less it is understood, and the more it is ignored.

The less confusing the answer, the more it is understood, and the less it is ignored.

While that had nothing to do with Banisher and Protector. The answer to this mess has got to be much simpler than wading through a maze of analogies.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

The more confusing the answer, the less it is understood, and the more it is ignored.

The less confusing the answer, the more it is understood, and the less it is ignored.

Alright then i'll do it the easy way:


Banisher of Light is a continuous effect taht applies all the time, every single phase, and battle step damage step end step of the battle phase.

Protector of the Grave can only apply during the last sub-step of the damage step.

Banisher of light already has its roots firmly planted, its effect has already been well established before Grave Protector tries to butt in. Therefore Banisher of Light has precedence.

 

[Melchiah76]

Alright then i'll do it the easy way:


Banisher of Light is a continuous effect taht applies all the time, every single phase, and battle step damage step end step of the battle phase.

Protector of the Grave can only apply during the last sub-step of the damage step.

Banisher of light already has its roots firmly planted, its effect has already been well established before Grave Protector tries to butt in. Therefore Banisher of Light has precedence.

i think...for my part...that that was that!!!...

i think i get the picture now, u guys....thank you. u r quite dedicated to this busines....KUTGW!!

 

[Gendo Ikari]

Wow.

I didn't realize what a massive debate I'd started. Thanks for all your input. My original idea was to use these two cards together on my side of the field to remove everything except monsters from both my deck and my opponent's deck, reducing the power of traps and magic that could be brought back from the graveyard. Too bad it won't work, because it could prove to be a fun duel. I think I'll play it as "grave protector saves the monsters destroyed in battle and everything else gets the boot" in a casual duel or two just for fun, but I won't rely on it in tournament play. The ruling seems correct. The Grave Protector is simply out of a job while Banisher of the Light is ruling the field. Well, I'm off to modify my tournament deck now. (damned ruling - lol)

 

[Jathro]

Here's my 2 cents. What if we think about it this way...

Both cards have continuous effects. Both have effects that affect all the cards on the field. Let's call them, 'Field Monsters'

Now when a Field Spell card is activated, and there is already a Field Spell card on the field, the original Field card is destroyed letting the newly activated Field card take over.

So shouldn't Banisher of the Light and Grave Protector work essentially the same way? In other words, whichever was activated last should have precedence if there is technically no official ruling. Make sense?



Now, that's probably a stretch. Personally, it seems to me Banisher takes precedence because the cards never actually go to the Graveyard, they are sent directly out of play (Do not pass 'Go' Do not collect $200).