Does Negate Attack Target, and Questions About Other Cards

[cameron2010]

Does Negate Attack target?

Why are the Egyptian God cards in Nightmare Troubadour able to stop Negate Attack?

If a Tyrant Dragon is selected for the effect of Double Attack, and the appropriate conditions for Tyrant's first effect are satisfied, will Tyrant Dragon be able to attack four times?

If a Burst Stream of Destruction destroys Dark Eradicator Warlock, will Eradicator still have its effect?

If a Mystical Space Typhoon destroys my opponent's Spell Absorption, does my opponent still gain life?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Does Negate Attack target?

Yes it targets.

If a Tyrant Dragon is selected for the effect of Double Attack, and the appropriate conditions for Tyrant's first effect are satisfied, will Tyrant Dragon be able to attack four times?

No, cards do nto double the number of attacks a monster can have. Cards taht say a monster can attack twice means a monster can attack a total of 2 times.

If a Burst Stream of Destruction destroys Dark Eradicator Warlock, will Eradicator still have its effect?

The damage will be inflicted right after the Spell card activates. The damage will be inflicted before Dark Eradicator is destroyed.

If a Mystical Space Typhoon destroys my opponent's Spell Absorption, does my opponent still gain life?

Yes, the life points are increased immediately after activation, before spell absorption is destroyed.

 

[NLFW]

The damage will be inflicted right after the Spell card activates. The damage will be inflicted before Dark Eradicator is destroyed.

I don't agree...from the rulings for Rapid-Fire Magician (which has almost the same text as warlock):

The 400 points of damage is inflicted after the effect of the Normal Spell Card is resolved. So if the opponent had 300 Life Points, and you activated "Rain of Mercy" while you had "Rapid-Fire Magician" face-up on the field, the opponent would gain 1000 Life Points, and then take the 400 points of damage, leaving them at 900 Life Points.

so if warlock is destroyed no damage will be inflicted

so if

 

[Maruno]

A simple case of inconsistency. Rapid-Fire Magician's ruling says after the resolution of the Spell Card, Spell Absorption says as soon as the Spell Card is activated, and Dark Eradicator Warlock is unknown. Note that all three cards say something along the lines of "when you activate a Spell Card".

 

[masterwoo0]

I think it basically comes down to the fact that a Monster cannot increase his life points from "0" or below "0", so any additions or subtractions from a Continuous Effect have to wait until all activated "life point gaining" effects have resolved first.

It also could be that, in most cases, since a Normal Spell Card is going to resolve unless it gets negated anyway, Rapid-Fire Magician and Dark Eradicator Warlock really dont need to say that "unless the activation is negated".

Spell Absorption is different because it involves ALL Spell Cards activated, and probably shouldnt work with Continuous Spell Cards or Equip Cards that are destroyed before they resolve, but I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[novastar]

I think it basically comes down to the fact that a Monster cannot increase his life points from "0" or below "0", so any additions or subtractions from a Continuous Effect have to wait until all activated "life point gaining" effects have resolved first.

It also could be that, in most cases, since a Normal Spell Card is going to resolve unless it gets negated anyway, Rapid-Fire Magician and Dark Eradicator Warlock really dont need to say that "unless the activation is negated".

Spell Absorption is different because it involves ALL Spell Cards activated, and probably shouldnt work with Continuous Spell Cards or Equip Cards that are destroyed before they resolve, but I guess it doesn't matter.

That is definately an interesting thought.

This idea of applying LP gains directly after activation vs. LP loss directly after resolution might very well have to with the idea that the game cannot be ended with Life Gain only with Life Loss.

So it must be determined whether the card was activated successfully and not negated (ie. Magic Jammer), and the only way to know is to have a resolution of some sorts (even if resolution is negated you still loose LP).

Of course it would throw that theory out if they ever made an effect that actually wins you the game once you reach a certain LP mark, like say: "If you have 20,000 Life Points you win"

I've never really been able to find a pattern.

As far as Dark Eradicator, if it is indeed continuous, damage would not be inflicted if destroyed by Burst Stream.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

That is definately an interesting thought.

This idea of applying LP gains directly after activation vs. LP loss directly after resolution might very well have to with the idea that the game cannot be ended with Life Gain only with Life Loss.

Curse of Darkness inflicts damage immediately after activation.

There's enough cards ruled either way to cast doubt on any explanation.

So without a definite right answer, the simplest answer is to do it as it says on the card; when it 'activates' (until the Judge List or Konami gives word. Note: There are no rulings for Dark Eradicator under the Japanese section of www.yugioh-card.com)

 

[masterwoo0]

Curse of Darkness inflicts damage immediately after activation.

There's enough cards ruled either way to cast doubt on any explanation.

So without a definite right answer, the simplest answer is to do it as it says on the card; when it 'activates' (until the Judge List or Konami gives word. Note: There are no rulings for Dark Eradicator under the Japanese section of www.yugioh-card.com)

And then you have people arguing that when cards like Rapid-Fire Magician state that it inflicts damage at the resolution, that's the standard.

Exception, or rule? Rule, or "Butterfly Dagger - Elma-like", for years until it gets changed?

 

[novastar]

Curse of Darkness inflicts damage immediately after activation.

There's enough cards ruled either way to cast doubt on any explanation.

So without a definite right answer, the simplest answer is to do it as it says on the card; when it 'activates' (until the Judge List or Konami gives word. Note: There are no rulings for Dark Eradicator under the Japanese section of www.yugioh-card.com)

Yes that is the current ruling, but it contradicts itself in the same statement:

"Curse of Darkness" inflicts 1000 damage right after the Spell Card is activated, not when it resolves. If the Spell Card's activation is negated however, such as with "Magic Jammer", then no damage is inflicted because the activation was negated."

followed by this:

"Curse of Darkness" does not form a new chain and cannot be chained to. You can chain to the Spell Card itself, after "Curse of Darkness" inflicts its 1000 damage."

Illustrating that the mechanics don't work, since you would only be able to chain MJ after the Spell Card's activation. I would say the same of Spell Absorption

I would agree that IF we had an effect here that was truly unique, without ruling, you would follow the card text. However, that is not the case here, as we have many other examples of very similar effects that state the opposite.

Using Curse of Darkness might not apply here as it is a Trap Card, and in a lot of cases it makes a difference. So the Rapid-Fire Magician ruling holds a lot more weight, its the exact same effect.

Just my thoughts

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Those rulings are not contradictory, negating the activation ofd a card is erasing something that has already happened.

8000-1000=7000 When the counter trap resolves, the ( - 7000 ) is erased, 8000 = 8000 and there's no evidence remaining of it ever being different.

The rulings jsut show that counter traps have to erase direct consequences as well (which i have compared to the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy in other threads).

The rulings could say that "if the activation is going to be negated, the damage will still be inflicted" which would agree with both rulings.

 

[novastar]

Then the ruling shouldn't say "no damage is inflicted" because that is misleading. It actually is more like "damage is inflicted, and then reversed when the activation is negated" which would be accurate to thier line of thinking.

Additionally, if you are correct and Magic Jammer would be negating something that already happened, then the damage cannot be reversed by Magic Jammer at all, just as you can't get the discard back for the cost. Only the Chain Link is removed, which is all activation negation really does. Either way, the ruling and mechanics are in error.

Anyway, im going to get back to the original topic.

Since Rapid-Fire Magician is a monster effect and seems to be identical to Dark Eradicator, the simplest answer would actually be to rule them same way. I don't see cards like Curse of Darkness even being applicable at all.

Even using card text, the two effects are written in identical templating, which would suggest that they work the same.

 

[Maruno]

Either way, the ruling and mechanics are in error.

Ah, something I think we can all agree on, and in any situation too

 

[cameron2010]

Ah, something I think we can all agree on, and in any situation too

This is absolutely correct. What needs to be understood is that even though Continous Spells and Traps have a Spell Speed. They only have a spell speed when Continuous Spell or Trap is activated.

It makes no difference whether Curse of Darkness is a Trap or Spell, because continuous EFFECTS do not have a Spell Speed. Instead there effects are applied, the same goes for effects such as Dark Eradicator, Rapid-Fire Magician, and even trample effects.

The only time Dark Eradicator, Curse of Darkness, Spell Absorption, or Rapid-Fire Magician would not get there effects thus far is if the Spell card's activation is negated. Typical negators are usually Magic Jammer, and other counters that negates activation of Spell cards. The ruling for Curse of Darkness and Spell Absorption should be the same for all other cards that state "Whenever a Normal Spell Card is activated".

But for some reason Konami of Japan decided to change the ruling of Rapid-Fire Magician, so that effect is applied is applied when the Spell card resolves. Chances are that most judges will probably associate Rapid-Fire's ruling card as the norm for all Spell Card activated card continuous effects. If this ruling were to hold true, then it would mean the text of Rapid-Fire Magician would have to be errated to state " When the Spell Card is resolved".

Personally I don't agree with the ruling, and think there should some sort of errata. Unfortunately, we have no control on this situation and may or may not ever happen.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Then the ruling shouldn't say "no damage is inflicted" because that is misleading.

That's quoting out of context.

On its own, it should something is diffent.

But because of the first sentence that establish's the point of view "right after the Spell Card is activated" once the activation has been negated, when looking at that point in time no damage is inflicted, because the event causing it has been negated. There is no error.

It actually is more like "damage is inflicted, and then reversed when the activation is negated" which would be accurate to thier line of thinking.

i disagree. Reverse would imply that the life points are being remodified, which they aren't. (It doesn't become 8000 -1000
+1000)

Additionally, if you are correct and Magic Jammer would be negating something that already happened, then the damage cannot be reversed by Magic Jammer at all, just as you can't get the discard back for the cost.

Completely diffent, you pay the cost to activate the card. A card negate the activation. It doesn't negate the causes of the activation.

E.g. If the activation of Sangan was negated, it doesn't go back onto the field, it's not treated as never have being sent to the graveyard, only the activation is negated, not the cause of the activation.

Only the Chain Link is removed, which is all activation negation really does. Either way, the ruling and mechanics are in error.

No chain link= no consequences of that chain link. It should be simple.

 

[Maruno]

Perhaps all this depends on who is activating the Spell Card.



Rapid-Fire Magician says your opponent takes damage when you activate a Spell Card. Damage inflicted: after resolution.

Dark Eradicator Warlock says your opponent takes damage when anyone activates a Spell Card. Damage inflicted: unknown.

Curse of Darkness says the Spell Card activator takes damage when they activate a Spell Card. Damage inflicted: at activation.



Am I right in thinking you couldn't forcibly lose the Duel on purpose, say, by activating a Spell Card with Curse of Darkness out? Because if I am, this makes sense.

Think about it. If you were using Rapid-Fire Magician (and assume it dealt its damage at activation), and activated any Spell Card to drop your opponent's Life Points to zero, you would win by Game Mechanics right after the activation (right after Rapid-Fire Magician deals its damage) before the opponent had a chance to respond. So even if she had something to negate your Spell Card, they couldn't use it, because you've already won.

But Rapid-Fire Magician doesn't say that. It says it deals damage after resolution. So the opponent can respond to negate the Spell Card and save herself.


Curse of Darkness is covered by my assumption that you couldn't activate a Spell Card if Curse of Darkness would make your Life Points zero. Because then you couldn't get into an End-Game situation with it, which is a game-changing event (which is important, obviously). So it might as well do its damage at activation, because you can't activate the Spell Card if you're going to lose because of it (assuming my assumption is correct).

Dark Eradicator Warlock doesn't have his ruling, but thinking along these lines I'd say it follows Rapid-Fire Magician. You could potentially win the Duel with his effect without even letting the opponent respond and save herself. Not very fair, is it? You have to let your opponent try to save herself.


So I think this problem is a case of, "how could you win from this?" If it deals damage, you can't make yourself lose (assuming my assumption is still correct; help me out here on this, guys!), and you can't make your opponent lose before she has a chance to save herself. If it increases Life Points (Spell Absorption), well, that doesn't matter anyway. Might as well go by the text and add the Point at activation. Increasing Life Points, as a solitary action, doesn't do anything game-changing.


Does that make sense?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Does that make sense?

Yes it does make sense, and its a good theory. But,

E.g. The reason that Levia Dragon destroys itself by its effect even if flipped face-down, and Demise King of Armageddon does not, could be that its trying to reward player for summoning monsters that take some difficulty to summon. (Which is why i would guess that Legendary Flame Lord, and The Last Warrior from Another Planet would not be destroyed in the same situation)

So maybe the facility of summoning Rapid-fire magician is why it needs a restriction, otherwise you could summon it and only have one opportunity to interrupt (responding to the summon) (+ the chaining opportunity equals 2 opportunities to stop the damage)

Whereas with Dark eradicator the opponent can Respond to the summon of Dark Magician, respond to the summon of Dark Eradicator. 2 as well, But offering two tributes to summon Dark Magician isn;t likely to happen. So one can expect to be able to chain to a card that is going to summon Dark Magician--or a card that generates 2 tributes, and then respond to the summoning of tributes.

I.E. If Dark Eradicator inflicts damage at activation, there is still at least an equal number of opportunites, and usually MORE opportunity for the opponent to save him/herself from defeat than if it were from Rapid-Fire magician; It wouldn't be necessary to make Dark Eradicator work like Rapid-fire magician.

 

[novastar]

i disagree. Reverse would imply that the life points are being remodified, which they aren't. (It doesn't become 8000 -1000
+1000)

The second ruling states that you chain after damage is inflicted, and that is not out of context... so Magic Jammer would have to wait until the damage is inflicted before you could even choose to activate it or not.

When they say inflicted, they mean the actual act of inflicting it, so the damage is done, and it is not conscious of whether MJ will be played or not. This is not some running count until the chain the stops and then it inflicts, it inflicts before MJ is activated.

So the only way to make it work would be to have the damage reversed, once MJ negates the activation.

I still haven't seen a reasonable explaintion for that

No chain link= no consequences of that chain link. It should be simple.

Just because the Chain Link was removed, does not mean that it was never created, payment of cost is a remnant of that, which is why i compared it. That is what Curse of Darkness reacts to (based on the mechanics)... an attempt to activate, it shouldn't matter what happens to the Chain Link afterwords.

At any rate, the rulings state the opposite of what i'm saying so i'll drop it. I definately disagree with it, but thats life.

With the original question, i don't think there is any doubt that it will be ruled exactly like Rapid-Fire Magician. That's probably the reason why they don't have any rulings on it, because it should be obvious.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

This sounds like validation, which i don't buy.

The second ruling states that you chain after damage is inflicted, and that is not out of context... so Magic Jammer would have to wait until the damage is inflicted before you could even choose to activate it or not.

When they say inflicted, they mean the actual act of inflicting it, so the damage is done, and it is not conscious of whether MJ will be played or not. This is not some running count until the chain the stops and then it inflicts, it inflicts before MJ is activated.

So the only way to make it work would be to have the damage reversed, once MJ negates the activation.

Read that first ruling again, "and the activation is negated" not if the activation is going to be negated. So if the activation has been negated, and somehow you're back in time, the damage is NOT being inflicted.

The time-line where the damage was inflicted doesn't exist anymore.

It never happened, because the counter-trap altered something that happened in the past to create a new timeline.

Just because the Chain Link was removed, does not mean that it was never created, payment of cost is a remnant of that, which is why i compared it.

Declare intentions to activate a card.
Pay a cost. Pick a target.
Consider the card activated and place it on the chain.

The counter trap negates the last part, it doesn't bother with the others (perhaps pick a target too). Costs are irrelevant.

With the original question, i don't think there is any doubt that it will be ruled exactly like Rapid-Fire Magician. Tht's probably the reason why they don't have any rulings on it, because it should be obvious.

Its certainly not obvious, there's no clear reason why Rapid-Fire was ruled the way it was so therefore there is no obvious extrapolation.

 

[novastar]

Read that first ruling again, "and the activation is negated" not if the activation is going to be negated. So if the activation has been negated, and somehow you're back in time, the damage is NOT being inflicted.

The time-line where the damage was inflicted doesn't exist anymore.

It never happened, because the counter-trap altered something that happened in the past to create a new timeline.

I get that, but that still indicates a reversal (or an erasing if you wish) of damage, we are actually meaning the same thing here, just different terminolgy, so i definately agree on this.

However, the new timeline would not occur until Magic Jammer resolves...which would be well after Curse has inflicted the damage. So Based on the process here, you could still loose before Magic Jammer is chained. That is where i have a problem with this.

I personaly feel that this is a fundamental flaw in the mechanics of this scenario. Since the activation can kill you before you even get to negate it.

Declare intentions to activate a card.
Pay a cost. Pick a target.
Consider the card activated and place it on the chain.

The counter trap negates the last part, it doesn't bother with the others (perhaps pick a target too). Costs are irrelevant.

Yeah during resolution side of the chain, not the activation side.

Its certainly not obvious, there's no clear reason why Rapid-Fire was ruled the way it was so therefore there is no obvious extrapolation.

Why is that relevent?

They chose to rule it that way, and the same logic applies to MANY monster effects like Skilled Dark Magician for instance. It wants successful activations, which requires an actual resolution (even if negated), and considering that you can negate activations in YGO, it actually makes alot more sense than the Curse of Darkness-like mechanics.

If you disgree that's fine, but they are identical effects, and being someone who has followed this for a looong time, Konami does this sort of thing all the time. They think its obvious to us pee-ons.

 

[masterwoo0]

However, the new timeline would not occur until Magic Jammer resolves...which would be well after Curse has inflicted the damage. So Based on the process here, you could still loose before Magic Jammer is chained. That is where i have a problem with this.

I personaly feel that this is a fundamental flaw in the mechanics of this scenario. Since the activation can kill you before you even get to negate it.

That's pretty much what I was alluding to in my earlier statement. The only effect I know of that doesnt allow you to respond (that is legal), is Exodia the Forbidden One.

If Curse of Darkness worked like it is stated by it's ruling, if your opponent has 1000 life points or less, there is no opportunity to chain, since you cannot activate any effects with "zero" life points. The game is over. How do you continue the game at that point? So, Just because you chain Magic Jammer or Magic Drain doesnt solve the problem because they can still chain Solemn Judgment or Seven Tools of the Bandit. At what point does that 1000 point damage kick in and kill the player, if its done at activation??

Unless you can still play cards with zero life points, the ruling for Curse of Darkness is wrong.

Also, here is the ruling for a similar effect...

Tower of Babel
Continuous Trap
Each time you or your opponent activates a Spell Card, put 1 Spell Counter on this card. When the 4th Spell Counter is put on this card, destroy this card and inflict 3000 points of damage to the player that activated the Spell Card at that time.


"¢ You place Spell Counters on "Tower of Babel" after the Spell Card resolves.

"¢ "Tower of Babel" must be active and face-up on the field before the Spell Card was activated, and when the Spell Card resolves, in order to get a Spell Counter. If you chain "Tower of Babel" to a Spell Card, you do not get a Spell Counter for that Spell Card. If a Quick-Play Spell Card is chained to the activation of "Tower of Babel", you do not get a Spell Counter for that Quick-Play Spell Card.