Interesting chain

[John Danker]

I realize this forum is more for questions but I feel it appropriate also to post rulings that happened and I think will benefit those who look through the forum.

This chain came up at one of the nationals matches....

Turn Player flip summons MOF and targets a spell card in their graveyard.

Non-Turn Player chains to the activation of MOF's effect with Torrential Tribute.

Turn Player chains to activation of Torrential Tribute with Chain Disappearance

Non-Turn Player chains to the activation of Chain Disappearance with his own Chain Disappearance.

It's an interesting chain and you may see a similar one when you're judging. Chain Disappearance is seeing more and more play to combat TER and Scapegoat.
The important thing to remember is that Chain Disappearance requires it's target to be on the field at activation AND resolution.

 

[helpoemer316]

The chain resolution here would be quite simple then with the thought in mind that Chain Disappearance requires its' target to be on the field at activation and resolution.

Non-Turn Player's Chain Disappearance would resolve first as the last card on the chain and remove the Turn Player's MoF from play and then remove all other copies from the Turn Player's deck and hand.

Turn Player's Chain Disappearance would then attempt to resolve but couldn't because the target is no longer on the field.

Non-Turn Player's Torrential Tribute resolves destroying all other monsters that are on the field.

Turn Player's MoF flip effect resolves and he/she retrieves their spell card from the graveyard.

 

[John Danker]

Yes exactly helpomer.

The reason I brought it up was that with the gaining popularity of Chain Disappeance I thought it important that everyone knows that the target needs to be face up at activation AND resolution. I'm sure we'll be seeing plenty of this trap card over the coming few months.

 

[Fiction]

I thought that Chain Disapearance did not target much like Bottomless Trap Hole which is why CD will take all Scapegoats special summoned off the field when Scapegoat is played.

 

[densetsu_x]

The last ruling about the card covers the fact that the monster must still be on the field when it resolves, but apparently since it can remove more than 1 maybe it targets all of the above? Or it is non-targeting but still needs the monster on the field to reference for the resolution.

 

[Manta]

So for clarity, what exactly does happen when Chain Disappearance responds to multiple simultanoues summons of different monsters? E.g. If Magician of Faith, Sangan and Apprentice Magician were to be summoned to the field by Cyber Jar.

 

[Big Oldprankster]

Helpoemer[/ycard]316]The chain resolution here would be quite simple then with the thought in mind that Chain Disappearance requires its' target to be on the field at activation and resolution.

Non-Turn Player's Chain Disappearance would resolve first as the last card on the chain and remove the Turn Player's MoF from play and then remove all other copies from the Turn Player's deck and hand.

Would this also include the fusion deck if TER was the monster? Is there a distinction between the deck and the fusion deck or in this case are they treated as the same?

 

[densetsu_x]

The Fusion Deck is considered part of the "deck" so all instances of Thousand-Eyes Restrict would be removed from play.

 

[Tkwiget]

So for clarity, what exactly does happen when Chain Disappearance responds to multiple simultanoues summons of different monsters? E.g. If Magician of Faith, Sangan and Apprentice Magician were to be summoned to the field by Cyber Jar.

Compare Bottomless Trap Hole's text with Chain Disappearance's text. They have similar wording to remove multiple summoned monsters.

For Chain Disappearance it says that "when a monster with an ATK of 1000 or less is Normal Summoned, Flip Summoned or Special Summoned." The key word is "when" and for explaination for Bottomless Trap Hole it would be this, "When your opponent Normal Summons, Flip Summons, or Special Summons a monster, etc.." and thus being the key word again, "when" which determines if multiple monsters or not will be removed from play.

Does that clear up anything?? I hope I didn't miss something. =/

 

[densetsu_x]

You did miss one thing:

Bottomless Trap Hole says when your opponent summons a monster(s).
Chain Disappearance says when a monster is summoned.

That "monster(s)" I'm sure will cause much more debate on that topic in the thread. Anyone want to mail the judge list on it?

 

[Tkwiget]

If that's the case then Chain Disappearance needs to be ruled that it doesn't kill all the Sheep Tokens from Scapegoat. (I am assuming it's ruled like that.) If that's the case then it changes a few rulings on Chain Disappearance right? If the words "monster(s)" and "monster" have different meanings, which of course they do, then this means Chain Disappearance will only remove one monster from multiple monsters being Special Summoned right? After all it doesn't say "monster(s)" in the text. Unless they need to Errata it..

 

[densetsu_x]

Your assumption is incorrect. There actually is a ruling that you can activate Chain Disappearance in response to Scapegoat and that it would destroy all 4 tokens at the same time.

 

[Tkwiget]

Yes, I know about the ruling. What I am saying is Chain Disappearance has the text that stats "when a monster" and it's considered not to target a monster? I disagree on that, I say it does because cards like Trap Hole have the same line of text. Trap Hole says "when a monster" and Bottomless Trap Hole says "when a monster(s)" and the difference there is the word "monster(s)" and "monster" mean two different things. "monster" is referring to 1 monster. Not 1 or more, just one. Each Sheep Token is considered to be a single monster right? Then it would only target one monster and attempt to remove the rest.

Now, if they're Reasoning for this is because Token's can't be placed in decks then I'll have to say they're agreeing on the fact that since that is a valid point about Tokens, the Tokens would be removed from the field. Now am I catching onto something?

 

[Digital Jedi]

Well keep in mind that Bottomless Trap Hole was only recently errata-ed to reflect that it destroyed multiples summoned simulteaneously. If you take a look at most copies of Bottomless Trap Hole you will notice that it reads just like Trap Hole, in that it insinuates its targeting. Its probably for the same reason that Chain Disapearance doesn't read correctly either. It has yet to be errat-ed properly. It took them forever to errata Bottomless.

 

[Tkwiget]

Ok, so the part where it says "when a monster" should read, "when a monster(s)". Gotcha, and I figured the morons didn't errata it yet..Ahh, well, at least we know.