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]

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.

Ah now that makes more sense :djmorph

 

[Raijinili]

I agree that the ruling makes more sense now.

Jason_C is poisoning the well when he says that Konami is changing a ruling to correct an error. How can you judge that it was an error in the first place, without logical proof?

 

[slither]

I don't really mind the ruling change, it's a bummer because I loved to be able to do that with BTH, against Earth decks mainly, but I don't really mind it

 

[novastar]

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.

It is looking for the event not the monsters, based on the entire response timing to begin with. It doesn't target because you don't get to choose who stays and who goes, it chooses for you.

To put it into perspective, the only reason Trap Hole "targets" is because only 1 monster is used.

...of course, there was a point in time when the JERP stated that BTH did infact target, which UDE loudly shot down... doesn't it seem funny how things come full circle...

 

[Jason_C]

I agree that the ruling makes more sense now.

Jason_C is poisoning the well when he says that Konami is changing a ruling to correct an error. How can you judge that it was an error in the first place, without logical proof?

Whose to say I don't have logical proof? This is some kind of logical fallacy, I'm sure. When your opponent makes an argument, that argument is considered valid until:

1) You find some flaw in their logic.

2) You provide a counter-argument which disproves the argument.

The second one being what novastar just did. You telling me my argument was invalid without a valid counter-argument is pointless. And bordering on flaming, since criticism that isn't constructive is basically a flame.

 

[Tkwiget]

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.

When Nobleman of Extermination is ever activated, you first target what you're going to attempt to destroy and remove from play. After that, if your opponent chains the targetted card to NoE, then the effect of NoE isn't applied as it can only destroy and remove from play a face down Spell/Trap.

I don't see where your confusion on how that card functions is. You can't destroy a Trap Card chained to Nobleman of Extermination if it doesn't remain face down on the field. That's why it says, "Destroy 1 face-down Spell or Trap Card and remove it from play." in the first place.

As for the issue with BTH, Nova is correct. Bottomless Trap Hole will only affect monsters in one event and only one event. It has to be activated in direct response to the summoning for it to affect any monsters. This is pretty clear with the ruling change they made.

Let's just say for argument sake that Fissure (since it was brought up earlier) is a normal Trap Card.

Opponent has only a D.D. Assailant on the field and a set Call of the Haunted with Sangan in the Graveyard.

He declares his attack and I respond with my set Fissure (which in this example is considered to be a Trap Card, but to prove a point..) and he chains Call of the Haunted to it. Now, does this mean that D.D. Assailant is the one that gets destroyed? No, it isn't. Fissure is non-targetting and is looking for the lowest attack on their field to destroy. Sangan is the lowest attack of the two monsters.

Now allow me to use a card we've probably seen a lot.

I have a set Widespread Ruin and my opponent attacks with a Don Zaloog. I respond with Widespread Ruin, he chains his face down Call of the Haunted to bring out Cyber Dragon.

Now, Widespread Ruin looks for the highest attack among the attack position monsters. Cyber Dragon is destroyed.

Now the point I'm trying to make is how horrible it is to compare cards that are looking for stats of monsters for their non-targetting effect. Bottomless Trap Hole is doing no such thing, it can and always will affect the monsters of only one event.

Also, Nova is correct about Chain Destruction. It's a targetting effect and his explaination of why is 100% correct.

 

[masterwoo0]

So what about "Physical Double"? It references a monster, but it doesnt do anything to it. Does that make it any less "targeting"?

 

[Tkwiget]

Considering it says, "Select 1 monster" at the beginning of the second sentence, I'd have to say yeah. It's pretty solid that it targets.

Also the third ruling backs me up too.

 

[masterwoo0]

But if you follow DJ's logic, the targeted card must be affected in some way to be truly targeted. This was just another example to show that the target does not always become affected by the targeting effect, not more discussion on "Select 1 monster..."

 

[Tkwiget]

I think this is a good time to mention this. =)

No one can remember everything in this game. That's why we judges work at events as a team rather than individual units. I believe Digital Jedi does know about this and even some of the best judges I've met (like him for example) can stray off in a dark direction. This has happened to me quite a few times.

 

[novastar]

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.

I just that of a real example for you DJ.

Enchanted Javelin... it's targeted and uses a similar "referencing" idea as Chain Destruction, but does not affect the target monster in any way, shape, or form.

Physical Double as masterwoo0 suggests is also another great example.

Hope that helps

 

[novastar]

As for the issue with BTH, Nova is correct. Bottomless Trap Hole will only affect monsters in one event and only one event. It has to be activated in direct response to the summoning for it to affect any monsters. This is pretty clear with the ruling change they made.

I appreciate your support. To be honest, i have always (and still do) believe that BTH is a targeted effect, that they simply messed up because it affected multiple monsters. I feel, and the revised ruling supports it, that it is infact a multi-target effect, i only try to explain it the other way because alas UDE/Konami want it that way....

btw, it is not "direct-response" it can be any link in the chain, as direct-response must be directly attached to what it is responding to... like Magic Jammer for instance.

The effect is simply triggered by that particular timestamp (that specific summon event), and only affects monsters summoned during that timestamp.

 

[Tkwiget]

A Rival Appears!, Dora of Fate, and Taunt are a couple more cards as well. =)

 

[Tkwiget]

I should have said, direct response to the event, which can mean it could be any link of the chain. Given if it isn't running into any Counter Traps.

I understand how you see it as a Multi-Targetting card. However, until they change their minds it isn't one.

They still have yet to define exactly what all the events are in the game, yet we've got a pretty good idea of what most - if not all - of them are.

 

[Tiso]

What is the point of remembering anything in this game when the rulings and text get changed on the dime? Now we still have a non-targetting card that no longer does what it did in the past, which was all it needed to be activated was a summon and any monster summoned before the resolution would get hit. Now, because UDE gave us some rulings on Magical Dimension we have to abide them to change an established ruling. As if this is not new in the world of Yu-Gi-Oh! Recently I just off the top of my head found anger in Bottomless Trap Hole, Treeborn Frog, and Ultimate Offering ruling wise lately. On one side I am happy that this card is no longer uber destructive in its nature and it will be reduced in play because of it. That means I can Power Bond a Cyber End Dragon and protect it with De-Fusion when my opponent activates Bottomless Trap against Cyber End Dragon. Of course on the other hand, this is just another bad thing to happen where the game can be changed around through mechanics and rulings on a dime.

 

[Digital Jedi]

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.

Look back on previous post, Woo0, and you'll see where I stated I was mixing and matching the effects of Chain Destruction and Chain Disappearance. In that example I was thinking of Chain Disappearance. And depending on whether you get to select either/or when a Proto-Cyber Dragon is summoned, thats a maximum of 4 monsters that would get removed from play.

By the old Bottomless Trap Hole ruling, you would have been able to remove multiple 1000- ATkers from play along with any 1000- that were summoned within the same chain.

 

[Digital Jedi]

I just that of a real example for you DJ.

Enchanted Javelin... it's targeted and uses a similar "referencing" idea as Chain Destruction, but does not affect the target monster in any way, shape, or form.

Physical Double as masterwoo0 suggests is also another great example.

Hope that helps

Okay, heres the problem I have with each of these examples including the ones TK lists.

A Rival Appears! - "select"
Physical Double - "select"
Dora of Fate - "select"
Taunt - "select"
Enchanted Javelin - "of 1"

Each of these cards are requiring you to make a selection to be even able to activate it. You must choose something, whether it be a monster or a monster's stats. Your still required to make a decision, a choice.

In Chain Destruction I don't see a choice involved, I see an event involvd. The event chooses the monster for you. In the event multiple monstes are summoned, then, and only then do you get to choose something, because it responds to the summon of "a monster". But even then your just responding to an event. The event being the summon. The selection of the monsters coincidental to the monster invlolved in the event. That's how I look on it anyway.

 

[novastar]

The event being the summon. The selection of the monsters coincidental to the monster invlolved in the event. That's how I look on it anyway.

And thats fine, but now i think you are overthinking this.

It is singling out a monster of your choosing (that done by activating) to use for the effect, that's targeting.

 

[HorusMaster]

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=8393

While I agree that Konami shouldn't change rulings to correct errors in card texts that are just released, I think that the change helps to remove the "ubber power" that BTH held. While there are cards that can diminish the power, those cards depend on whether they are on the field or not. Magical Dimension can also be stopped, obviously, with a multitude of cards so I think the change just helps to even out the field all the way around and allows for an even consistency with card effects.

As for Soul Exchange, I wish they would make up their minds about whether you need to have a monster on the field before you can activate it or not. I may be mistaken, but didn't the original ruling indicate you DIDN'T need to have a monster on the field? Too many inconsistencies with the rulings on this card.

 

[Jason_C]

While I agree that Konami shouldn't change rulings to correct errors in card texts that are just released, I think that the change helps to remove the "ubber power" that BTH held. While there are cards that can diminish the power, those cards depend on whether they are on the field or not. Magical Dimension can also be stopped, obviously, with a multitude of cards so I think the change just helps to even out the field all the way around and allows for an even consistency with card effects.

As for Soul Exchange, I wish they would make up their minds about whether you need to have a monster on the field before you can activate it or not. I may be mistaken, but didn't the original ruling indicate you DIDN'T need to have a monster on the field? Too many inconsistencies with the rulings on this card.

But "ubber power" is far from a logical reason for changing a ruling.