Did you guys read the Bottomless Trap HOle ruling?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

krazykidpsx

New Member
thats so outrageous. Only becuase konami didnt think about the ruling on Magical Dimension doesnt mean that BTH had to suffer. talk about inconsistances. man thats wack, BTH has lost ubber power today.

just like Kevin Tewart put it:
Kevin Tewart said:
it's no longer an uber-destroyer that floats on the field
annihilating all in its path once it resolves.
Click to expand...

:(
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=8393

Konami has agreed to reverse an old ruling on "Bottomless Trap Hole" that was in conflict with a new ruling for "Magical Dimension".

Some of you may remember the old ruling involving "Ultimate Offering" vs. "Bottomless Trap Hole". It's been reversed. Here's the NEW RULING:

Only the monster(s) that triggered "Bottomless Trap Hole's" effect. Example: Player A Normal Summons "Dark Blade", and Player B activates "Bottomless Trap Hole" in response <Chain Link 1>, then Player A chains the effect of his face-up "Ultimate Offering" to Tribute "Dark Blade" for "Summoned Skull" <Chain Link 2>. "Ultimate Offering's" effect resolves first, and "Dark Blade" is Tributed for "Summoned Skull". Then the effect of "Bottomless Trap
Hole" Disappears because the monster it would have applied to is no longer on the field.

While "Ultimate Offering" vs. "Bottomless Trap Hole" might not come up very often, the main reason for this reversal is so that the ruling for "Magical Dimension"
is consistent. (Note that "Magical Dimension" is a Quick-Play...)

MAGICAL DIMENSION RULING:
If you Summon a monster like "Skilled Dark Magician" and the opponent activates "Bottomless Trap Hole", you can chain "Magical Dimension" to Tribute "Skilled Dark Magician" and Special Summon another Spellcaster from your hand. This new Spellcaster will NOT be destroyed by "Bottomless Trap Hole".

Note that "Bottomless Trap Hole" still can destroy & remove multiple monsters Summoned at the same time, like for "Cyber Jar" or "Return from the Different Dimension". However, it's no longer an uber-destroyer that floats on the field annihilating all in its path once it resolves.

Kevin Tewart
Sr. Game Designer
UDE Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG R&D Lead
Upper Deck Entertainment
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wait . . . so they made an inaccurate ruling on Magical Dimension, and, rather than fix their inaccuracy, decided to tweak an older ruling so that the newer one is no longer inaccurate? That's just wrong. Makes me think of how older cards get restricted when newer cards that combo brokenly with them come out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jason_C said:
Wait . . . so they made an inaccurate ruling on Magical Dimension, and, rather than fix their inaccuracy, decided to tweak an older ruling so that the newer one is no longer inaccurate? That's just wrong. Makes me think of how older cards get restricted when newer cards that combo brokenly with them come out.
Click to expand...
No, they amended an old ruling that was in error to begin with. Bottomless Trap Hole should have always worked this way. The old rulgin never made any sense.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
not really because since the card hasnt resolved and since its not a targetting effect anything you chain will get hit by the Bottomless Trap Hole.

in this case they just made it say, that its a Targeting effect and that if its targets arnt on the board when it resolves the effect fizzles out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
There's no mechanical reason why Bottomless Trap Hole should destroy everything Special Summoned in the same chain. It was always a BKSS in the sense that there was nothing else like it. The text does not even remotely indicate that it affects monsters summoned AFTER its activation. It shoudl only and always should have only affected the monster it was activated in response to.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
think about it this way. "Its a non-targeting targeting effect"

If the card doenst require a Target like say Fissure, why would it only affect the cards that were on the field when it was activated.

check this out, I play Fissure, you inresponce sacrafices your current creature to turn it into a much bigger creature. Will Fissure now fizzle out becuase it will only affect thouse creatures that were on the board upon activation? makes no sence now does it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
krazykidpsx said:
think about it this way. "Its a non-targeting targeting effect"

If the card doenst require a Target like say Fissure, why would it only affect the cards that were on the field when it was activated.

check this out, I play Fissure, you inresponce sacrafices your current creature to turn it into a much bigger creature. Will Fissure now fizzle out becuase it will only affect thouse creatures that were on the board upon activation? makes no sence now does it.
Click to expand...
dang insanity..ive been gone to long....

new rulings...it doesnt make sense to me either
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I must side with krazy. It isn't a targeting effect. So there's no reason why the monster whose summoning bottomless was activated in response to would necessarily have to be the only one (or even THE one) that bottomless rfp's.

<EDIT: I believe the above is grammatically unsound. Allow me to rephrase.

There's no reason why bottomless must rfp the monster, and ONLY the monster, in response to whose summoning it (bottomless) was activated.

There we go, there's no more ending complete grammatical phrases with non-objective prepositions. I feel secure in my abilities to communicate with others . . . even though those "others" can't communicate with me. ;) (Just jabbing, DJ). >
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
krazykidpsx said:
think about it this way. "Its a non-targeting targeting effect"

If the card doenst require a Target like say Fissure, why would it only affect the cards that were on the field when it was activated.

check this out, I play Fissure, you inresponce sacrafices your current creature to turn it into a much bigger creature. Will Fissure now fizzle out becuase it will only affect thouse creatures that were on the board upon activation? makes no sence now does it.
Click to expand...
So by that logic, if I respond to a summon with Chain Destruction, and my opponent chains an effect that Special Summons another monster mid-chain, all three copies of BOTH monsters are removed from play?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chaos general said:
It's not that bad of a ruling... It doesn't really bother me at all, actually. Why is it a problem?
Click to expand...
Because, older, more "established" rulings should not be changed when Konami makes errors on newer rulings.

Now, I don't want a logical fallacy here. I'm not saying that just because one ruling is older than the other makes it better. However, established rulings should not be changed just for the heck of it, as that creates confusion. And, since the sole purpose of rulings is to eliminate confusion, well, you see...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jason_C said:
That would depend on if Chain Destruction is targeting or not. If it is, then the answer is "yes".
Click to expand...
preaty much right?

It all depends on weather or not the card targets.

If it targets then you know. If it doesnt then you know what would happen.

Just like fussure BTH is only searching for all creatures 1500 and Above that it can remove from play at the moment it resolves.

why is it that when cyberjar gets done with you cant do BTH till after the summon and by that point if the 1500 are face down they dont go? becuase they arnt face up for BTH to look for and kill off.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Bottomless Trap Hole
When your opponent Normal Summons, Flip Summons, or Special Summons a monster(s) with an ATK of 1500 or more, destroy and remove from play the monster(s).

Still don't see it. This is not like Fissure at all. Fissure has no specific timing regarding its activation. Fissure will seek out the monster with the lowest ATK whenever.

Bottomless Trap Hole has specific timing. It can ONLY be activated in response to a Summon of a Monster with 1500 or less. It makes no sense for it to destroy monsters that didn't prompt it's activation. Just becaue there in the same chain. Never did. It was also never played this way until the Judges List posted the scenario to begin with. No one was destroying every monster in the chain, and this was never the reason given when it was explained. Bottomless Trap Hole doesn't set up a lingering condition. It responds to a specific event and should only affect that event. Not every event incidental to it.

Oh and Chain Destruction is non-targeting. There is no selection process involved in the card's activation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top