I need a recap on Dark World...

[Tkwiget]

I'm pretty sure I'd rule correctly on these situations. Just want to make sure.

Situation A

Turn Player has Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World and Sillva, Warlord of Dark World in his hand. Player B has a Set Bottomless Trap Hole. Turn Player activates Card Destruction. Card Destruction resolves completely. Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World and Sillva, Warlord of Dark World are Special Summoned to the field. Player B responds by activating Bottomless Trap Hole. Both Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World and Sillva, Warlord of Dark World are destroyed and removed from play.

Situation B

Turn Player has an active Royal Oppression on the field. Player B has three Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World in his hand. Turn Player activates Card Destruction. All of the Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World activate at the same time to Special Summon onto the field. The Turn Player activates Royal Oppression to pay 800 Life Points to negate the Special Summoning of all three Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World.

Situation C

Turn Player has a Set Morphing Jar with three copies of Broww, Huntsman of Dark World in his hand. Turn Player Flip Summons his Morphing Jar and discards all three copies of Broww, Huntsman of Dark World. The Turn Player first draws his five new cards from Morphing Jar's effect and then draws one card per copy of Broww, Huntsman of Dark World that he discarded from Morphing Jar's effect.


Am I correct on all three of these situations? The first two situations I'm ruling on like that because Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World, Sillva, Warlord of Dark World, and Biiege, Vanguard of Dark World don't trigger their special summoning effect when entering a game phase, like Vampire Lord.

I've got a regional coming up that I'm judging and I need a recap on these situations. =)

 

[Tiso]

You mean, "Well GEE GOLLY Sonny Boy I disagree [insert emoticons a gazillion times]". No thanks, I do not like that "fakeness" to them and they can cause even more problems. A happy face can be viewed as a sarcastic gesture. "Good duel [insert happy face]" even though it clearly was not.

 

[Digital Jedi]

No, I don't mean to use extremes. I simply mean that not appearing aggressive can take a little practice.

 

[Tiso]

No, I don't mean to use extremes. I simply mean that not appearing aggressive can take a little practice.

But again this is the internet. I could be sipping tea, reading a paper, holding my cat in my arms, listening to the sounds of the ocean, and yet you do not know that but have an assumption that my "tone" is aggressive. People read way too much into the text and take it way too seriously which leads to these problems. Not to mention, again I am the only being singled out? Obviously I am the only person "guilty" of this apparent "aggressiveness".

Also, just so you do not get confused, I am not typing this in an aggressive fashion.

 

[Digital Jedi]

But again this is the internet. I could be sipping tea, reading a paper, holding my cat in my arms, listening to the sounds of the ocean, and yet you do not know that but have an assumption that my "tone" is aggressive. People read way too much into the text and take it way too seriously which leads to these problems. Not to mention, again I am the only being singled out? Obviously I am the only person "guilty" of this apparent "aggressiveness".

Also, just so you do not get confused, I am not typing this in an aggressive fashion.

LOL. Alright, I'll take your word for it. No, lately you haven't been the only one. Not even in the last two weeks. I've stated before on similar threads that the internet does not teach one to express themself in this way. We're the first TCG related board I know of that deliberatly lays down the law on behavior and on showing other member mutual repect. This doesn't mean that everyone MUST like each other, or MUST use smiley faces in every post (though that would be ideal). It simply means that, on most boards, aggressiveness is a way of life, a way to survive being chewed up by even more agressive flamers and we want a community that doesn't have that problem. A place where a kid can aska question about Silfer the Sky Dragon and not get insulted by twelve posters.

Tiso, if it seems like we're singling you out, we aren't. We're just very zealous on maintaining the enviornment that we have help to build.

 

[ancient_duelist]

Sorry to be late jumping in on this, but I had jury duty today and just got around to catching up on this thread. There is one particular point I want to address (I hope I did not edit out too much):

Now, having said that, this should only occur upon a summon, which becomes an "event".

. . .

Player A choses not to continue the chain. Bottomless Trap Hole resolves, destroying the summoned monster and removing it from play. Player A's monster was not summoned successfully as it is no longer on the field, but it was summoned.

This contradicts a "definition" of successfully summoned given on the Judge's List by Curtis Schultz:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=6702#6702

Answer:
Monsters are considered to be "successfully Summoned" when their Summon is not negated. Summons are normally negated by cards like "Solemn Judgment," "Horn of Heaven," or "Royal Oppression."

Monsters are considered to be "successfully Tribute Summoned" when their Tribute Summoned is not negated.

In your example, "Zaborg the Thunder Monarch" was successfully Tribute Summoned, thus its Trigger-Effect activates, the target is chosen, and the opponent is then given their chance to respond with "Bottomless Trap Hole," "Torrential Tribute," "Book of Moon," etc.

I realize this does not answer the question of where the monster is when the summon is negated, but it clearly indicates (to me anyway) that there must be a separate response point for the negators to activate before the monster is successfully summoned.

 

[masterwoo0]

I think you're reading more into what I am saying. I worded it backwards for that exact fact.

Successfully Summoned is the definition for "most" effects to activate.

Summoned Successfully is the Player's "state of mind" that his monster made it to the field with no problems. Not summoned successfully is the Players "state of mind" when his monster is removed from the field. I'm not saying this as a Game Mechanic term.

Again, when I use the term "Successfully Summoned", that is the point where you can resolve a monsters effect (since priority allows you to activate it).

Summoned Successfully is all the other stuff you can do with it, like "attack".

 

[Digital Jedi]

So what it al boils dow to it's either one of two options:

1. A summon is an event with a declaration and resolution point. Negators respond to the declaration. or...
   
2. Summons have no resolution. The either are or they aren't and negators are special in that they undo what was done and make it as if it never happened.

If I've boiled those down correctly, then I'd have to say that if it's the second one, the priority, in thecase of the negators, is something that can be erased as if it never happens. You verey well might get ann opportunity to put a counter on Breaker, desicard for tribe, remove a monster from play for BLS, but then the negator makes it as if it never happened.

 

[ancient_duelist]

I think you're reading more into what I am saying. I worded it backwards for that exact fact.

Successfully Summoned is the definition for "most" effects to activate.

Summoned Successfully is the Player's "state of mind" that his monster made it to the field with no problems. Not summoned successfully is the Players "state of mind" when his monster is removed from the field. I'm not saying this as a Game Mechanic term.

You keep this up and UDE will be hiring you to answer questions on the Judge's List.

Again, when I use the term "Successfully Summoned", that is the point where you can resolve a monsters effect (since priority allows you to activate it).

Summoned Successfully is all the other stuff you can do with it, like "attack".

Ok. But going back to the message I was responding to, you said:

Now, this is where it either goes right, or wrong.

Player B chains Solemn Judgment to Tribe-Infecting Virus effect to negate the summon and destroy the monster.

At this point, the last thing to occur was the summon of Tribe-Infecting Virus.

Solemn Judgment resolves, negating the summon of Tribe-Infecting Virus' AND since his summon was negated, his effect does NOT activate and no Spellcasters are destroyed.

Now, how can Bottomless Trap Hole and Solemn Judgment NOT have the same timing?

I will use another Judge's List ruling to dispute this claim:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=8057#8057

Answer:

The timing for "Solemn Judgment"/"Horn of Heaven"'s activation makes it impossible for Player A to activate "Exiled Force"'s effect.

Remember, Player A doesn't have priority to activate "Exiled Force"'s effect until after its successful Summon.

However, "Solemn Judgment"/"Horn of Heaven" negates the Summon. This means that there is no window of opportunity for Player A to activate "Exiled Force"'s effect, as it is not successfully Summoned in this case.

It is clear from this answer that your example of chaining Solemn Judgment to the activation of Tribe's effect is impossible, because Tribe never gets the chance to activate it's effect. I really believe this shows there must be a separate response point for the negators to activate *before* the point for activating BTH etc happens. I just don't see how it can be otherwise.

Here is another example:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=8997#8997

This was raised after a tournament was over this past weekend and I was not 100%
sure that my opinion was correct. So I told him I'd check here.

In the local metagame here Solemn Judgement is fairly common. There is one player
when summoning monsters that have effects that target (such as Mobious),
he will always ask before declaring targets whether or not the summon was
successful. His reason for doing this is that he wants to have them decide to
negate the summon before he declares any targets. He never really thought
anything about it until we were in a detailed discussion about announcing all
plays being a good practice.

Is this acceptable because the monster must be successfully summoned for the
effect to trigger?

Or is the timing not correct because he maintains priority until after declaring
targets?

Thank you,
Spot's Knight

----------------------------------------------------

The opponent would have to activate "Solemn Judgment" to negate the Summon before targets are chosen for Mobius's effect.

I realize I may be totally misinterpeting what you are saying, but it seems to me from these rulings that there is no way to chain Solemn Judgment to any activated monster effects because it must activate itself before that can happen. There must be some window of opportunity for that to happen, yes? No?

 

[masterwoo0]

If you notice, there are a lot of contradictory statements. I could very well be wrong, which is why I said that "this is where it could be right or wrong".

I was just trying to see both sides of the argument concerning priority, which, again, is why I said I was willing to concede that Turn Player may retain Priority even though you are attempting to negate the effect.

My original stance was that the turn player does not get priority.

 

[ancient_duelist]

If you notice, there are a lot of contradictory statements. I could very well be wrong, which is why I said that "this is where it could be right or wrong".

I was just trying to see both sides of the argument concerning priority, which, again, is why I said I was willing to concede that Turn Player may retain Priority even though you are attempting to negate the effect.

My original stance was that the turn player does not get priority.

[Emily Litella]Oh, that's quite different. Never mind.[/Emily Litella] <lol>

I think your original stance is the right one given the current understanding of how the game works. Not to say that it couldn't change . . .

 

[EmeraldDragon]

Now back to where a card is when it is negated. Here is my thinking. Since some people say on the field and some dont lets assume that it isnt as more than enough has been said about if it is.

The negators say.... negate the summon and destroy the card. Lets look at it like this.

Q. if its destroyed while on the field then why is it the monsters that say sent from the field dont get their effects?
A. The card in question must be destroyed in such a way that it never becomes face up on the field or any other way of being on the field at all.

Q. Why is the effect negated if the flip summon is "negated"?
A. If the card is negated before its flipped which is the only possible thing that can happen since we have established it never becomes face up on the field then we must assume that while it is on the field since the negator destroys it while it is stil simply a faceless nameless card then any and all effects that go along with this card cannot and will not activate due to its not being seen as anything but a blank faceless nameless card until it is already in the graveyard.

 

[Tiso]

Because "negate the activation, summon, etc" is taking more of an esemble meaning. Notice how there is no longer "negate the activation and effect" anymore on those same Counter Traps. When it comes to the FLIP Summon, it is not negating the FLIP effect, it is negating the FLIP SUMMON.

 

[dannyboi]

try this

ave u ever tried running Gray Wing in ur deck

 

[EmeraldDragon]

What exactly were you trying to post in danny? Seems you made a bit of a mistake here. happens to us all. Probably had a fair few windows open and just got a tad confused right? happens dont worry about it.