Dark Neo-Victory Panther Spacian Viper XX03

[Digital Jedi]

Here's a bizarre question.

Suppose Victory Viper XX03 is copied by Neo-Spacian Dark Panther. You use the third effect to Special Summon an Option Token. When the end of the turn comes, what happens to the option token?

I know what I'm thinking, but I'll let you all chime in first. (Take that Official Judges List)

 

[masterwoo0]

But the notions that a card's name can change likely never entered his mind when explaining that particular scenario. We refer to card names as a matter of grammar. We don't yet know if a card changing name equates a card leaving the field.

Again, we are attempting to "think" for Curtis. No one but Curtis knows what he is or was thinking.

I know how I look at it, and it looks exactly like I stated it would be, and that is that Dark Panther is not Victory Viper and will be "another card", to which it will not be referenced and the Option Token(s) destroyed.

You look at it as a verification of how you envisioned it to work. We both cannot be correct, and again, only Curtis (or whomever chooses to answer) knows which one of us will be, by giving us his perspective on this scenario.

EDIT: And... It didnt just change its name, it changed its entire effect. That is more important than just changing a Attribute or Type. If you changed the effect of Cyber Dragon, to say, "Weather Report", could you still Special Summon it from hand, just because it said it was Cyber Dragon?

If your opponent activates Dark Deal on your Monster Reborn, can you still Special Summon a Monster from your Graveyard, even though the name of the card is the same?

 

[Digital Jedi]

But again, that still presumes that the effect is continuous emanating form Vic Viper, and not a condition placed upon the tokens.

 

[masterwoo0]

But again, that still presumes that the effect is continuous emanating form Vic Viper, and not a condition placed upon the tokens.

But what if it is? What does it change?

If you say the name doesnt matter, then what do you do in cases where you get a Misprint card? Normally, as long as the card has the Name, and Index# designation, but a different picture, it would be considered "that titled card". Now, we replace the text, but keep everything else the same as above. We have the correct name, the correct index#, correct picture, but wrong text. How do we play the card?

Now, lets replace "everything". What does the card become? A totally different card with a different effect, which is no longer a representation of what it was in the past. Does the fact that you knew what it was before, matter? It will, if you are the only one who knows what it was. Otherwise, it wont matter to anyone else because it isnt anything that they would be wary of.

if we change Dark Panther into something which he normally is not, he is still Dark Panther underneath, but it doesnt matter because his text has changed, and his name has changed, but his stats have not. I think we are all in agreement that stats are irrelevant at this point.

When Dark Panther changes "back", his name is once again what it was, as well as his effect. What remnant is left to state that he ever was Victory Viper? Nothing but the Option Token, and since the Option Token is a product of Victory Viper, it cannot exist.

 

[Digital Jedi]

We've been through this already. But, for clarity's sake, I feel that the Option Token only references the card that generated it and that the only things the token looks for is the monster's stats. The name is irrelevant. But I'm a fan of simplicity, so it's the reason I subscribe to this theory. It's the most basic.

 

[masterwoo0]

We've been through this already. But, for clarity's sake, I feel that the Option Token only references the card that generated it and that the only things the token looks for is the monster's stats. The name is irrelevant. But I'm a fan of simplicity, so it's the reason I subscribe to this theory. It's the most basic.

Then being "simple" and "basic" says, once the WHOLE card isnt the same anymore, it isnt the same.

Simple.

Token goes bye bye. No confusion.

How can anyone sit here and say the simple solution is to create a situation where you cannot agree without building a equally complex way of arriving at the end result?

The card text of Victory Viper itself states that when it isnt there, neither is the Token. If I have to make up my own theory as to why it should stay, it is no longer simple and basic.

If I want a glass of water, Im not going to go looking for some Hydrogen and Oxygen, and bond them together to create water. I'm going to look for something that is ready to pour.

That is what simple "is".

You could argue that changing the name of Grapes to Raisins doesnt change what they are, and that they are still Grapes, and you would "basically" be correct. Nothing changed about the make up of the item itself except that it is now severely smaller than the original fruit.

But, this isnt the case with Dark Panther. It didnt start out as Victory Viper, ended up copying the effect, and went back to being Dark Panther.

If there is something simple about what just happened, then we need a new definition of the word.

 

[Digital Jedi]

If simplicity says to you that because the card changes names, then it's not the same card anymore, that's fine. Simplicity says to me that it's never been defined before, so unless the effect, or a ruling, says it's dependant on the name, simplicity says to me "this card" will always be the one I point at.

How much more basic can "this card" be, then it always being "this card". I'm still me even if I legally change my name and get one of my arms replaced with an elephant's trunk. If I change myself back to the way I was, does that undo any accomplishments I made while part pachyderm? No. Identity is the issue here. Mimicry doesn't say to me all past accomplishments are erased.

Your also still arguing form the standpoint that the effect is Continuous. I still view the effect as all the other tokens, as a condition. Simplicity say to me that if it is, then a card is card.

 

[masterwoo0]

If simplicity says to you that because the card changes names, then it's not the same card anymore, that's fine. Simplicity says to me that it's never been defined before, so unless the effect, or a ruling, says it's dependant on the name, simplicity says to me "this card" will always be the one I point at.

How much more basic can "this card" be, then it always being "this card". I'm still me even if I legally change my name and get one of my arms replaced with an elephant's trunk. If I change myself back to the way I was, does that undo any accomplishments I made while part pachyderm? No. Identity is the issue here. Mimicry doesn't say to me all past accomplishments are erased.

Your also still arguing form the standpoint that the effect is Continuous. I still view the effect as all the other tokens, as a condition. Simplicity say to me that if it is, then a card is card.

Im not arguing the "Name". I wish for once, I could get someone who doesnt surface read, to actualy READ what I have been posting for the past days.

If it were as simple as changing names, then nothing changed. It not only changed its name, it changed its effect as well, and YOU keep going back to the "Name Change". Not once have I argued from the standpoint that a Name change means anything.

It's like being in the Witness Protection program. What good would it do to just change a persons name, and let them live in the same house?!!

Also, why can't conditions be continuous?

 

[Digital Jedi]

If I hadn't read your post, then I wouldn't have made mention of Continuous Effects, which is largely what your argument stands on. If the effect is Continuous, then your argument stands. If it isn't, then I think mine holds as much water. Since when do I surface read?

Also, why can't conditions be continuous?

If the condition is on the tokens, the effect of the card that generated them doesnt matter anymore.

 

[masterwoo0]

Since when do I surface read?

Since you keep saying that I am saying a name change makes the difference, and that is my whole argument.

Not that my concern isnt the name, but the fact that the whole effect that created the token is gone. I could care less that the name isnt the same. Its the effect that is no longer the same as well as the name.

That combination means more to me than any one thing that changed.

And yes, I believe the effect is Continuous based on the fact that no other effect that generates a Token ties the tokens existence to itself. Not even Cobra Jar.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Actually, at least a couple of times, I stated your argument was based on the effect being continuous.

 

[masterwoo0]

Actually, at least a couple of times, I stated your argument was based on the effect being continuous.

To which you never replied when I said, "what would make the difference if it was", and since it was never addressed, the same debate ensued.


EDIT: Im assuming that you are stating that the Victory Viper, in the creation of the Option Token, only places a Condition on the token, rather than the Token Continuously "overseeing" the status of Viper, or "this card" (refered to as Victory Viper), in which it will only disappear if "this card" is removed from the field..

Since your "Condition" only states that the Option Token disappears if "this card", which needs no designation, is no longer face-up on the field, it doesnt matter that Dark Panther becomes the name of "this card" because "this card" doesnt need a name as long as it will always be "this card" that made the Option Token.

My Condition states that the Option Token is tied to the fate of the Victory Viper that created it, as the message from Curtis alluded to, and that "this card" will be designated as Victory Viper, which would include the original text. "This card" is not a statement that means anything more than the wish to not repeat the name "Victory Viper XX03" several times within the course of the text.

"When [this card] destroys a opponents monster..."

At this point, what possible card could "this card" be referring to? Victory Viper doesnt have an effect that would change its own name, and there is no other effect (other than Dark Panther, Proto-Cyber Dragon) that would change a cards name, only the effect.

So, for simplicity sake, in the first line of Victory Viper's text, is it just more "simple" to state

"When Victory Viper XX03 destroys a opponents monster..."

Or easier to be consistent with all cards that do not use their name (since you can only be talking about one card) in the description, for example (let's see if anyone can guess the name of "this card"

Text
As long as this card remains face-up on your side of the field, control of this card cannot switch. During the End Phase of a turn that this card destroyed a monster as a result of battle, send this card to the Graveyard to Special Summon 1 "Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV6" from your hand or Deck.

I'm sure you realize what card it is by now. So, let's just replace it with the name in the text, and see just how redundant it becomes, when you already know that it can only be referring to the titled card itself

Text
As long as Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4 remains face-up on your side of the field, control of Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4 cannot switch. During the End Phase of a turn that Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4 destroyed a monster as a result of battle, send Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4 to the Graveyard to Special Summon 1 "Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV6" from your hand or Deck.

When you read that text as it is written, you begin to understand why the individual posted the question that he did to the Judge List.

Since it no longer seems that "this card" actually means "this ONE card", and more like, "As long as a Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4 is on the field", how confusing is it to try to say that they mean "this card" in an explanation, when "this card" is also "that card", and possibly "that other card"?

It's infinitely easier to just put "this card" into the card text, which helps to clarify the fact that you are not referring to the possibility of a second monster with the same name, but the monster that is in the title of "this card", implying ownership to everything within the borders of the card itself

Card Name
Card Stats
Card Text
Card Index#
Card Art

Anything that is not within the referenced card is not "this card". And when Dark Panther returns to his original effect, he no longer has anything that resembles Victory Viper's effect, and becomes his own "this card". When the Option Token attempts to check for the the Victory Viper who was designated as "this card" for simplicity sake, it is no longer there.

That's how I see it, and the only way I can see it from the alternate point of view is if I wished it would work like that.

 

[Maruno]

To which you never replied when I said, "what would make the difference if it was", and since it was never addressed, the same debate ensued.

There's nothing evident on the card to suggest it would be a continuous effect of Vic Viper. So in answer to the question, "what would make the difference?", my answer is, "well, nothing".

If you'd asked the question, "what would be different if the effect was a continuous one of Vic Viper?" the answer would be just as you're claiming it to be. At the end of the turn, Option Token would have undefined stats and be sent to the Graveyard (not destroyed) by Game Mechanic.

However, that's hypothetical. (Practically) all previous examples of Monster Tokens suggest this stats-copying thing is a condition on Option Token.

 

[Digital Jedi]

To which you never replied when I said, "what would make the difference if it was", and since it was never addressed, the same debate ensued.

Um, that's been my whole standpoint for this discussion. I did address that, several times.

As long as Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4 remains face-up on your side of the field, control of Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4 cannot switch. During the End Phase of a turn that Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4 destroyed a monster as a result of battle, send Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4 to the Graveyard to Special Summon 1 "Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV6" from your hand or Deck.

You know, most card names phrase their effect this way. But aside from that, there's one problem with the logic, it presumes that this was "this cards" intention from the the start. It's too early to presume that. We've made those presumptions before, only to be smacked in the face by Konami logic, and the intention of Takahashi. "This card" could just as easily represent a pointer.

 

[masterwoo0]

Um, that's been my whole standpoint for this discussion. I did address that, several times.




You know, most card names phrase their effect this way. But aside from that, there's one problem with the logic, it presumes that this was "this cards" intention from the the start. It's too early to presume that. We've made those presumptions before, only to be smacked in the face by Konami logic, and the intention of Takahashi. "This card" could just as easily represent a pointer.

Which is why I stated that we dont know what Curtis meant, while everyone else read into his post that it WAS verification that the Token would stay, rather than stating that it was still unsolved, which would have been the point of view I would have taken if I were on your side of the issue, because it didnt really hit on anything for me, other than Curtis saying "this card refers to Victory Viper"

And "this card" has been consistantly used as a pointer to the card within the border of the actual card.

You are using it as a pointer to "any card", which Dark Panther would be, even if he created the Token.

Additionally, this game is not in research and development. It is never too early to presume anything. It is just to early to state that your presumption is the correct one. Tournaments dont wait for Konami... They wait for you to make a decision.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Come on, woo0. You know I didn't mean that in the context of a tournament. It's always too early to presume a concept that Konami has yet to invent. The game might as well be in research and development the way its mechanics and rules have fluctuted over the years. And I'm not using the pointer as any card. I'm using it on one card.

 

[slither]

That's something I must agree on, many terms in this game are to vague to yet be developed into something concrete to evaluate rules or even assumptions.

 

[masterwoo0]

That's something I must agree on, many terms in this game are to vague to yet be developed into something concrete to evaluate rules or even assumptions.

Well, this is not like Baseball, where when things look like a tie, you rule for the Runner.

This situation would and will come up in a Duel. These type of debates fuel the possible abuse of a cards effect when players can see that there is no consensus among even Judges, until we can get a more accurate decision.

So, what we have here is 2 sides saying, "I believe that Token is gone/not gone", and there is more to be lost by erring on the side of caution than to err on the side of benevolence.

Once you give somebody something, its harder to take back than it is to "give it".

 

[slither]

Well, this is not like Baseball, where when things look like a tie, you rule for the Runner.

This situation would and will come up in a Duel. These type of debates fuel the possible abuse of a cards effect when players can see that there is no consensus among even Judges, until we can get a more accurate decision.

So, what we have here is 2 sides saying, "I believe that Token is gone/not gone", and there is more to be lost by erring on the side of caution than to err on the side of benevolence.

Once you give somebody something, its harder to take back than it is to "give it".

I'm not disagreeing in what you say (IMO the token is gone, as I stated many posts behind), though we are having a pass the ball game with noone giving in what they believe it's their point of view.

Many scenarios have been given already, supporting both cases, and in the end it's yet to be agreed on, so that's why I say the concept is vague.