ChaosMachine
New Member
If Jinzo is one of the monsters special summoned by return from the different dimension will he negate them being removed from play at the end of the turn?
Jinzo and RFTDD
- Thread starter ChaosMachine
- Start date
The game gives a monster the ability to attack, the player simply chooses when (or if) and the intended targets.slither said:
Players do not attack, monsters do, the player simply makes the decisions.
Effects like [ycard="FET-EN052]Threatening Roar[/ycard] take away the monsters ability to attack. The same idea applies to Swords.
Im not contradicting that monsters attack... but im placing a key word here "declare" mosnters attack, players "declare" an attack, a monster is unable to attack if the player just doesn't declare one (except for Gorilla of course, that little monkey doesn't know what he's doing 
)
)I disagree. The problem here is that you're taking the word, "Declare" too literally. Monsters do indeed declare attacks, regardless of their possible lack of mouths. In YGO, declare means "attempt" to attack.slither said:Im not contradicting that monsters attack... but im placing a key word here "declare" mosnters attack, players "declare" an attack, a monster is unable to attack if the player just doesn't declare one (except for Gorilla of course, that little monkey doesn't know what he's doing
-pssvr
Even if we say the "players declare an attack" it doesn't matter.
The underlying mechanics here, have to do with how effect like TR interact with monsters.
The game gives a monster the ability to attack once per turn, and TR takes that ability away (or any effect given abilities).
The underlying mechanics here, have to do with how effect like TR interact with monsters.
The game gives a monster the ability to attack once per turn, and TR takes that ability away (or any effect given abilities).
Dillie-O
Council of Heroes
My thought here is that the game is taking another change in its mechanics, for better or worse. This could be intentional or not, I don't have the ear of UDE and Konami to make that judgement.
I think that this discussion is showing that there could be another level of granularity going into the game. The two things that I've noticed over the years here with Yugi is that things are getting more and more intricate. For the longest time, I think the general concept of traps/effects during damage calculation wasn't seriously considered unti [ycard="DB2-EN171]Injection Fairy Lily[/ycard] was being used extensively. Then came some serious discussion on what can be activated when and how it resolves for the step.
The Dark World monsters opened a set of mechanics that really hadn't been looked at before. Two separate effects that happened on a single link resolution (the special summoning and hand thinning effect). One effect was dependent upon the other, but once started, there was no way to break it up.
Now with Wildheart and crew, we're starting to relook at the declaration vs. monster attack at the start of the battle phase. The ramifications of this have yet to be seen.
This is all IMO of course, but the winds of change seem to be blowing again 8^D
I think that this discussion is showing that there could be another level of granularity going into the game. The two things that I've noticed over the years here with Yugi is that things are getting more and more intricate. For the longest time, I think the general concept of traps/effects during damage calculation wasn't seriously considered unti [ycard="DB2-EN171]Injection Fairy Lily[/ycard] was being used extensively. Then came some serious discussion on what can be activated when and how it resolves for the step.
The Dark World monsters opened a set of mechanics that really hadn't been looked at before. Two separate effects that happened on a single link resolution (the special summoning and hand thinning effect). One effect was dependent upon the other, but once started, there was no way to break it up.
Now with Wildheart and crew, we're starting to relook at the declaration vs. monster attack at the start of the battle phase. The ramifications of this have yet to be seen.
This is all IMO of course, but the winds of change seem to be blowing again 8^D
I know you don't venture outside the Rules Forums to much nova. But something you said got me to thinking about the way the cards are phrased with regads to attack. I went ahead and posted my thoughts in my old errata thread (see sig).
Yes maybe im taking a little to literally the cnocept of "declare" an attack, but for some particular [ycard="DR1-EN029]Reasoning[/ycard]s in game mechanics we have to take into account very literally which some texts, otherwise we can't really explain the "why" of things.
I maybe giving this a little too much thought as I have really seen much conflict of this particular case evolving, and some of the [ycard="DR1-EN029]Reasoning[/ycard]s behind my way of thinking really came into play when I saw the [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard] vs. Wildheard rulings:
now I know that this really doesn't have much of an issue regarding this particular case, but given a thought about this I came to realize that exceptions do in fact occur and this is one of them, this tells us that Wildheart has as "Aquiles Heal" per say, it can in fact be affected.
Why do I racionalize this so much, well if we were to look at the facts as soon as Wildheart hits the field [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard] will immediately kick in and "erase" any effects that might involve Wildheart, but what difference would it make if it was activated afterwards.
Take Horus vs Level Limtit Area - B for instance, as soon as Horus hits the field "it should" change positions, but his continous effect prevents that even if Level LAB is in play before or even afterwards.
Now maybe im just a sucker for mechanics and I maybe really getting off topic here, but all this particular small things contradict lots of other rulings and cases, and TR vs EHW might not be the exception.
I maybe giving this a little too much thought as I have really seen much conflict of this particular case evolving, and some of the [ycard="DR1-EN029]Reasoning[/ycard]s behind my way of thinking really came into play when I saw the [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard] vs. Wildheard rulings:
now I know that this really doesn't have much of an issue regarding this particular case, but given a thought about this I came to realize that exceptions do in fact occur and this is one of them, this tells us that Wildheart has as "Aquiles Heal" per say, it can in fact be affected.
Why do I racionalize this so much, well if we were to look at the facts as soon as Wildheart hits the field [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard] will immediately kick in and "erase" any effects that might involve Wildheart, but what difference would it make if it was activated afterwards.
Take Horus vs Level Limtit Area - B for instance, as soon as Horus hits the field "it should" change positions, but his continous effect prevents that even if Level LAB is in play before or even afterwards.
Now maybe im just a sucker for mechanics and I maybe really getting off topic here, but all this particular small things contradict lots of other rulings and cases, and TR vs EHW might not be the exception.
I doubt it. In fact, I'd say you make an excellent point. THis is the explanation I've always used with my friends:slither said:
Continuous effects of spell / trap cards do not become active upon resolution, and continuous effects of monsters do not become active upon their summoning. Actually, they become active in a special time window that exists SOLELY for this puropse. No other card / effect / event can ever intervene in this window.
This window is between the event (resolution, summoning) and any other potential events. So if [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard] is active and Wildheart is summoned, Wildheart's effect doesn't become activate until AFTER it has been summoned, AFTER [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard] has already negated the effect.
Likewise, if Wildheart is on the field and [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard] is activated, [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard]'s effect doesn't become active until AFTER it has resolved, AFTER Wildheart has already blatantly ignored it.
And now chaosruler is about to butt in...
-pssvr
For the sake of not getting into a loooong drawn out discussion on effects and timestamping, lets be in the understanding that we are not talking about a Continuous Effect where [ycard="FET-EN052]Threatening Roar[/ycard] is concerned.
Even though it lasts for a turn, it is still by definition, a non-continuous effect. To compare it to [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard], Level Limit and the like, is not an accurate comparision.
I will get back to this with a much more detailed explaination later on after work.
Even though it lasts for a turn, it is still by definition, a non-continuous effect. To compare it to [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard], Level Limit and the like, is not an accurate comparision.
I will get back to this with a much more detailed explaination later on after work.
novastar said:
Aaahh then we agree on that, that we are not talking about "continous" effects, so then why is it that Swords is elible for comparison with TR? Can't remember correctly if it was this or another post where someone stated that the difference b/w Swords and TR was in fact that Swords had to be face-up on the field so its effect can be active.
So why can we put in discussion that Swords has no relevancy towards it being continous or not, it does matter if it is face-up or not, TR skips that part of the effect.
pssrv - yes you are correct on the "window" timing issue, that has been my way of thinking anyways, i've always discussed that with several other judges, but if it is so, then monsters unaffected by spell cards will in fact be changed to defense position when LLAB is on play (novastar, im not saying that there effects with [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard] are anything alike, im just saying that an effect has in fact been active on the field, before anything else, ergo pssvr's explanation towards why [ycard="DCR-049]Skill Drain[/ycard] negates Wildheart)... but why does this not apply for this other monsters?
Dillie-O
Council of Heroes
The [ycard="SD1-EN014]Swords of Revealing Light[/ycard] reference comes into play because its the closest thing we have to "exact text" of [ycard="FET-EN052]Threatening Roar[/ycard] than anything else. In addition, using the existing SORL/Horus LV6 ruling, it gives us a point of precedence in order to see how we would rule TR/Wildheart. If you follow this angle to the rulings, then we'd be done with this discussion aeons ago. 8^D
However, if you decide to take a "fresh" look at the ruling on TR/Wildheart, then you dissect the card text and effects a bit more and use SORL/Horus LV6 ruling as a point of comparison. Since TR resolves and "lingers", it provides a slightly different mechanic than the "continuous" effect that SORL provides. This gives us a completely different potential to outcome, but we have to verify the difference, if any, between the two. SORL is an "old hat" card that has some weird specific features to it that make it rough to judge with.
If you take the third, highly literal angle, then you see that TR/SORL are effectively saying the same thing and causes a contradiction. If indeed Wildheart cannot attack because it is the player being affected by the trap, why can Horus LV6 be able to attack when SORL is preventing the player from declaring an attack as well.
We won't even bother going into the hybrids here, as been brought up by [ycard="DB1-EN065]Messenger of Peace[/ycard] and [ycard="PSV-EN073]Gravity Bind[/ycard] 8^D
In a lot of ways we are at the same place we were a few months ago with the imfamous [ycard="LON-EN096]Bait Doll[/ycard] vs. [ycard="SYE-050]Raigeki Break[/ycard] discussion. Where and if did you pay the activation requirement for it. And before that the separate rulings on [ycard="TLM-EN034]Elemental Mistress Doriado[/ycard] with [ycard="RDS-EN055]Fuh-Rin-Ka-Zan[/ycard] and [ycard="FET-EN059]Elemental Burst[/ycard]. We're laying out the groundwork, solidifiying the apects to examine, and hopefully we'll get some work from UDE on what the official word is and some explanation as to why.
However, if you decide to take a "fresh" look at the ruling on TR/Wildheart, then you dissect the card text and effects a bit more and use SORL/Horus LV6 ruling as a point of comparison. Since TR resolves and "lingers", it provides a slightly different mechanic than the "continuous" effect that SORL provides. This gives us a completely different potential to outcome, but we have to verify the difference, if any, between the two. SORL is an "old hat" card that has some weird specific features to it that make it rough to judge with.
If you take the third, highly literal angle, then you see that TR/SORL are effectively saying the same thing and causes a contradiction. If indeed Wildheart cannot attack because it is the player being affected by the trap, why can Horus LV6 be able to attack when SORL is preventing the player from declaring an attack as well.
We won't even bother going into the hybrids here, as been brought up by [ycard="DB1-EN065]Messenger of Peace[/ycard] and [ycard="PSV-EN073]Gravity Bind[/ycard] 8^D
In a lot of ways we are at the same place we were a few months ago with the imfamous [ycard="LON-EN096]Bait Doll[/ycard] vs. [ycard="SYE-050]Raigeki Break[/ycard] discussion. Where and if did you pay the activation requirement for it. And before that the separate rulings on [ycard="TLM-EN034]Elemental Mistress Doriado[/ycard] with [ycard="RDS-EN055]Fuh-Rin-Ka-Zan[/ycard] and [ycard="FET-EN059]Elemental Burst[/ycard]. We're laying out the groundwork, solidifiying the apects to examine, and hopefully we'll get some work from UDE on what the official word is and some explanation as to why.
John Danker
Administrator
Explination of why? Oh we could only hope! Those are few and far between!
Dillie-O
Council of Heroes
True, or at least gives us all the scenarios we're looking at. The original [ycard="LON-EN096]Bait Doll[/ycard] vs. Wall of Revelaing Light ruling we got was disappointing. We waited FOREVER on it and then got a simple yes/no answer from it. Then I think somebody asked another one that didn't involve an immediately cost and that was a simple yes/no answer.
It wasn't until we finally got the full answer with various scenarios "If the cost can be paid, it must be paid at that point otherwise the timing becomes incorrect" that really nailed the coffin down on that one. I could finally apply [ycard="LON-EN096]Bait Doll[/ycard] to numerous situations 8^D
I guess I'm hoping we get something like this, but I've always been a "glass half full" type guy 8^D
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...
It wasn't until we finally got the full answer with various scenarios "If the cost can be paid, it must be paid at that point otherwise the timing becomes incorrect" that really nailed the coffin down on that one. I could finally apply [ycard="LON-EN096]Bait Doll[/ycard] to numerous situations 8^D
I guess I'm hoping we get something like this, but I've always been a "glass half full" type guy 8^D
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate...
I coulfn't disagree more. I would not clasify SoRL as a continuous effect. The rules may say that, I don't know. But clearly, this is a debate of logic, not rules. And logically, swords is not a continuous effect. How many normal spell cards do you know with continuous effects?
SoRL has a normal spell's normal effect, plus a rather special effect that causes it to remain on the field.
IMHO, Saying that SoRL is a continuous effect is like saying that [ycard="SD1-EN021]Call of the Haunted[/ycard] is an equip card: Just because it may have an odd effect that causes it to act SIMILARLY to said card type doesn't mean it IS that card type.
-pssvr
[ycard="SD1-EN014]Swords of Revealing Light[/ycard] is a Continuous Effect. Continuous Effects do not have to have to be generated from Continuous Spell or Trap Cards. Anymore then Continuous Spell and Trap Cards have to have a Continuous Effect.([ycard="SDP-046]Ultimate Offering[/ycard]. [ycard="MFC-040]Wave-Motion Cannon[/ycard]) [ycard="SD1-EN014]Swords of Revealing Light[/ycard] is an unuausal card to say the least, but it's effect is most certainly continuous. Otherwise it couldn't have it's face-up effect negated by [ycard="PSV-EN104]Imperial Order[/ycard].pssvr said:
Actually, the mechanics of Swords was changed in order to un-break it, due to [ycard="MRD-EN036]Magician of Faith[/ycard] abuse.Digital Jedi said:
It's effect is actually suppossed to work like [ycard="DCR-091]Final Countdown[/ycard], and be sent to the Graveyard after chain resolution.
Swords remaining on the field was a "fix" to a broken card.
THAT is why it is comparable to TR...
novastar said:
If we take that into account then and go back in time when SoRL was too broken, then what would have been the rulings back then for Horus vs SoRL?
I would say that it could also be possible for Horus/Silent or whatever, to not be able to attack either, [ycard="DCR-091]Final Countdown[/ycard] is impossible to stop, it activates and its effect puts itself on "standby" until the 20 turns have passed, therefore [ycard="MFC-020]Spell Canceller[/ycard] cannot negate it, but let's say for a second that [ycard="DCR-091]Final Countdown[/ycard] stayed on the field for that 20 turns, [ycard="MFC-020]Spell Canceller[/ycard] would negate its entire effect.
Therefore, it does matter that cards sit up on the field or they just resolve and leave an effect out on the enviroment of the game.
But, as you once said, this is the only game where card effects define the mechanics of the game as the game goes along. As it stands, Swords is still a Continuous Effect, regardless of how we came to it being so. They could have just as easily made it a Continuous Spell Card but chose not for whatever reason. I'll admit it is unique for a Spell Card, but indicative of the fact that not all Continuous Effects are generated from cards with the Continuous Icon.novastar said: