Did you guys read the Bottomless Trap HOle ruling?

[krazykidpsx]

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:

it's no longer an uber-destroyer that floats on the field
annihilating all in its path once it resolves.

 

[slither]

The same can be said for Trap Hole and it targets.

 

[Tkwiget]

I don't know about you guys, but the new Bottomless Trap Hole v.s. Ultimate Offering ruling makes sense to me. I'll attempt to explain..Keep in mind I'm not claiming I'm correct either.

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.

Alright, here's my take on this ruling. Since I never clearly remember the ruling before it was reversed, I can't really see what doens't add up here.

Bottomless Trap Hole is Chain Link 1 of the Chain Block correct? Ultimate Offering is Chain Link 2. Since Bottomless Trap Hole's initial activation was in response to Dark Blade's summoning. Ultimate Offering is Tributing Dark Blade off to Tribute Summon a Summoned Skull. Summoned Skull is summoned onto the field before Bottomless Trap Hole resolves. Bottomless Trap Hole was never activated in response to Summoned Skull and thus will not affect it and vanish.

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".

Once again I'll attempt to explain this since I was never aware of the ruling problem.

This is similar to the new Ultimate Offering v.s. Bottomless Trap Hole ruling. A monster summoned after Bottomless Trap Hole's activation won't be affected by it. This is because I believe that Bottomless Trap Hole has to be activated in direct response to the monster being summoned. Thus, Bottomless Trap Hole resolves without the effect working.

That's just how I see it and to me it looks pretty consistant. I suppose it does have to do with the fact I never knew the rulings existed in the first place.

 

[Digital Jedi]

The same can be said for Trap Hole and it targets.

"When your opponent Normal Summons or Flip Summons a monster with an ATK of 1000 points or more, destroy the monster."

Not really. The timeing for the activation is the same, but it specifically says to destroy the monster (singular) that was just summoned. Aside form the fact that there will never be a case of multiple Normal Summons taking place simultaneously, the card can only ever affect a targeted card. Chain Destruction on the other hand selects any number of monsters, maybe 1, maybe 3 (or the case of a Proto-Cyber Dragon maybe 4) and removes them from play. The amount determined by how ever many you happen to have

 

[krazykidpsx]

I don't know about you guys, but the new Bottomless Trap Hole v.s. Ultimate Offering ruling makes sense to me. I'll attempt to explain..Keep in mind I'm not claiming I'm correct either.


Alright, here's my take on this ruling. Since I never clearly remember the ruling before it was reversed, I can't really see what doens't add up here.

Bottomless Trap Hole is Chain Link 1 of the Chain Block correct? Ultimate Offering is Chain Link 2. Since Bottomless Trap Hole's initial activation was in response to Dark Blade's summoning. Ultimate Offering is Tributing Dark Blade off to Tribute Summon a Summoned Skull. Summoned Skull is summoned onto the field before Bottomless Trap Hole resolves. Bottomless Trap Hole was never activated in response to Summoned Skull and thus will not affect it and vanish.


Once again I'll attempt to explain this since I was never aware of the ruling problem.

This is similar to the new Ultimate Offering v.s. Bottomless Trap Hole ruling. A monster summoned after Bottomless Trap Hole's activation won't be affected by it. This is because I believe that Bottomless Trap Hole has to be activated in direct response to the monster being summoned. Thus, Bottomless Trap Hole resolves without the effect working.

That's just how I see it and to me it looks pretty consistant. I suppose it does have to do with the fact I never knew the rulings existed in the first place.

the old ruling was just how i stated it, If a new monster appears itll get eated by BTH.

becuase BTH all it needs is a summon to trigger. thats it.

the activation cost is a summon. so you know...

thats the thing with it. The card doesnt require the creature to stay there, it doesnt say "when the opponent summons destroy target creature that has just been summoned"

so it should work the old way, the new way is just dumb... It is actually making the card a targetting effect and not a Non-Target.

 

[Digital Jedi]

the old ruling was just how i stated it, If a new monster appears itll get eated by BTH.

becuase BTH all it needs is a summon to trigger. thats it.

the activation cost is a summon. so you know...

thats the thing with it. The card doesnt require the creature to stay there, it doesnt say "when the opponent summons destroy target creature that has just been summoned"

so it should work the old way, the new way is just dumb... It is actually making the card a targetting effect and not a Non-Target.

But you don't seem to be stating a reason why. It's not implied in the card text. So why does this make more sense to you when it had to be pointed out to us in a Jdges List message wen no one was plaing that way to begin with, because it didn't seem mechanicaly sound?

 

[slither]

"When your opponent Normal Summons or Flip Summons a monster with an ATK of 1000 points or more, destroy the monster."

Not really. The timeing for the activation is the same, but it specifically says to destroy the monster (singular) that was just summoned. Aside form the fact that there will never be a case of multiple Normal Summons taking place simultaneously, the card can only ever affect a targeted card. Chain Destruction on the other hand selects any number of monsters, maybe 1, maybe 3 (or the case of a Proto-Cyber Dragon maybe 4) and removes them from play. The amount determined by how ever many you happen to have

Where does it state that is not 1 only monster??

You can activate this card when a monster with an ATK 2000 or less is Normal Summoned, Flip Summoned or Special Summoned. Destroy all monsters with the same name in the summoning player's hand and Deck. The Deck is then shuffled.

It's only speaking of one monster.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

a monster = at least one monster.

It doesn't mean "one monster"

But with Trap Hole there is no way it would encounter multiple monsters.

But Chain Destruction should be targetting because it's only going to check for one monster. (It is possible to special summon two different monsters at a time)

You have to pick whihc monster is going to be the target for Chain Destruction.


But then there's the different dimension ruling... whici is probably just an unecessary ruling... but...

 

[krazykidpsx]

But you don't seem to be stating a reason why. It's not implied in the card text. So why does this make more sense to you when it had to be pointed out to us in a Jdges List message wen no one was plaing that way to begin with, because it didn't seem mechanicaly sound?

Why the new way is incorrect because BTH:

doesnt target
The cost to activate is a summon.
Its a global effect.
It doesnt resolve upon activation.


It checks for the creatures itll destroy upon resolution not activation.

In this case they are stating that the lines of text on the card are actual targeting points upon activation.

meaning when it activates, itll target all creatures upon activation and ONLY thouse will be removed. but the card text doesnt say that, now does it.

Fissure does the same thing, Fissure activates and untill resolution finds its weakling to kill off.

If it had the same ruling for BTH dont you think it would be incorrect?

You play Fissure, and then i kill off the weakest creature on my board to summon a stronger.

since the old weakest is no longer on the board the effect of Fissure will fizzle.

does that make sence? No it doesnt. hence forth like Fissure, BTH should only kill off said creatures when it resolves.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Why the new way is incorrect because BTH:

doesnt target
The cost to activate is a summon.
Its a global effect.
It doesnt resolve upon activation.


It checks for the creatures itll destroy upon resolution not activation.

In this case they are stating that the lines of text on the card are actual targeting points upon activation.

meaning when it activates, itll target all creatures upon activation and ONLY thouse will be removed. but the card text doesnt say that, now does it.

Fissure does the same thing, Fissure activates and untill resolution finds its weakling to kill off.

If it had the same ruling for BTH dont you think it would be incorrect?

You play Fissure, and then i kill off the weakest creature on my board to summon a stronger.

since the old weakest is no longer on the board the effect of Fissure will fizzle.

does that make sence? No it doesnt. hence forth like Fissure, BTH should only kill off said creatures when it resolves.

How can you even compare Fissure to Bottomless Trap Hole? The have entirely different functions. Fissure does not respond to anything. There is no timing involved. The key thing to look at here is the timeing.


I've seen nothing to indicate Chain Destruction is targeting. "When a monster is . . . summoned" is an activation condition that no more makes it targeting then Bottomless Trap Hole. It doesn't even affect the summoned monster, now that I think about it. It only destroys the monsters in the hand and Deck that happen to have the same name. I've never seen that to be a targeting effect.

Different Dimension Dragon? Well, like I said, Chain Destruction is not destroying the monster summoned. It's destroying the monster's of the same name in a place where it has no effect, be it targeting it or not. I would think the ruling is only there to calrify that DDD has no effect in the Deck or hand and thereby can be destroyed by a non-targeting effect there.

 

[slither]

The destruction of the monsters inside the deck I agree that effect is non-targetting, but selecting the 2000 or less summoned monster is in fact a targetting effect.

What if several monsters are summoned with Cyber Jar? You can't pick 2,3,4 monsters with 2000 Atk or less, you must "select" 1 of them meaning it creates a targetting effect.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Hold on here a minute. Looking back on my posts I'm mixing and matching Chain Destruction with Chain Disappearance. I knew something didn't seem right. Let me back track a minute here.

Chain Disappearance was the effect I had in mind when I made the example about it being activated in response to a summon and then another effect was chained to it that Special Summons a monster. My question was, would it remove six monsters, depending how many were in the hand and Deck? If so, we missed out on a powerful effect when we could use it.

Chain Destruction on the other hand I didn't mean to bing up, however, in retrospect, I still don't belive it is targeting. The card references the mosnter you responded to. References are seldom, if ever, tergeting effects. It's a coincidence that the monster responded to is the monster being used as a refrence, not a desision made after activation.

 

[novastar]

It's not a matter of targeted vs. non-targeted at all.

The effect of BTH does not allow for destruction of any summon (at any point int time) that occurs before it resolves. The entire response chain itself is timed on the very first summon event that created the timing that allowed for it's activation. You are responding to 1 event that occured at a specific point in time. Summons that occur afterwards (like say during the resolution of the chain) should not be included in that timing.

It can destroy multiple monsters that were summoned simultaniously (like with Cyber Jar), but a monster summoned during chain resolution (in this case the Summon Response Chain) is not simultanious.

BTH should have always worked as the new ruling suggests.

 

[novastar]

Chain Destruction on the other hand I didn't mean to bing up, however, in retrospect, I still don't belive it is targeting. The card references the mosnter you responded to. References are seldom, if ever, tergeting effects. It's a coincidence that the monster responded to is the monster being used as a refrence, not a desision made after activation.

The enitre effect itself is dependant on the monster chosen for the effect.

That is a pure targeted effect. It's no different than Trap Hole.

 

[Digital Jedi]

So we agree on at least one. I'll take it.

 

[novastar]

Truthfully, i don't see what the issue is with Chain Destruction at all. It's pretty straight forward from what i see.

1 monster is summoned, you activate (and target), and then the target is used to carry out the effect, just like Trap Hole

In the case of simultanious monsters, you select (at activation) which one will be used.

Clear cut to me.

 

[Digital Jedi]

The enitre effect itself is dependant on the monster chosen for the effect.

That is a pure targeted effect. It's no different than Trap Hole.

You know why I don't see it as targeting. The fact that the monster summoned is never affected. Only referenced. If it was affected in some way I'd be more inclined to say it was targeting, but it does nothing to the summoned monster other respond to its summon. The card looks back on the monster you responded to and destroys its ilk. Even when multiples are summoned, you appear to be responding to one, but not selecting it in the targeting sense of the word.

 

[novastar]

But targeting has nothing to with the target itself specifically being affected.

The definition of targeting is that the caster is specifically selecting a target(s) for an effect when it is neccessary, in an attempt to control what exactly the effect is going to do. A target(s) is simply information that the effect is asking for from the user, and used to carry out the effect. It does not neccesarily mean that the specific card chosen is affected.

What if an effect stated:

"Select 1 monster on your opponent's side of the field. Only the selected monster can attack until the end of the turn"

Is that affecting the target monster? or every other monster the opponent controls?

 

[masterwoo0]

"When your opponent Normal Summons or Flip Summons a monster with an ATK of 1000 points or more, destroy the monster."

Not really. The timeing for the activation is the same, but it specifically says to destroy the monster (singular) that was just summoned. Aside form the fact that there will never be a case of multiple Normal Summons taking place simultaneously, the card can only ever affect a targeted card. Chain Destruction on the other hand selects any number of monsters, maybe 1, maybe 3 (or the case of a Proto-Cyber Dragon maybe 4) and removes them from play. The amount determined by how ever many you happen to have

Chain Destruction will only remove Cyber Dragon's, not "Proto-Cyber Dragon's" since they are also known as "Cyber Dragon" while they are on the field, and only Proto-Cyber Dragon while in hand and deck.

That would also seem to point out that the effect targets.

 

[krazykidpsx]

So basically my confusion comes from a different aspect.

I see it as a card that hasnt resolved hence forth hasnt used its effect only activated.

If thats the case, then im incorrect in how this game works with Activation / Resolution.

cause if the case is just that wouldnt Nobleman of Extermination still destroy traps that activate? not remove, but atleast destroy. Cause I guess the effect only carries out upon resolution. but from here on out im just jabbering you can ignore me, Im incorrect and would like some documentation on Activation / Resolution to better understand how itll work.

 

[Jason_C]

It's not a matter of targeted vs. non-targeted at all, DJ is correct.

The effect of BTH does not allow for destruction of any summon (at any point int time) that occurs before it resolves. The entire response chain itself is timed on the very first summon event that created the timing that allowed for it's activation. You are responding to 1 event that occured at a specific point in time. Summons that occur afterwards (like say during the resolution of the chain) should not be included in that timing.

It can destroy multiple monsters that were summoned simultaniously (like with Cyber Jar), but a monster summoned during chain resolution (in this case the Summon Response Chain) is not simultanious.

BTH should have always worked as the new ruling suggests.

I'm staying as far away from this Chain thing as I can, and sticking to BTH here:

Basically, what you've just said, Nova, is that BTH "watches" the monster(s) in response to whose summoning it was activated. Now, that sounds like targeting to me.

Yes, I know what I said about Call of the Haunted.