Master Monk

[masterwoo0]

I didnt think my question was that hard, but it only took about 4 to 5 months to answer....


Master Monk vs Book of Moon or Tsukuyomi 2006-03-30 15:59:00 <James Johnson>


1. Okay, Master Monk's effect allows him to attack twice in the same Battle Phase,
but not necessarily back to back, so he can attack, then let another monster
attack, and resume Battle himself.

That being said, if Master Monk attacks a monster, and after the Damage
Calculation is complete, my opponent activates Book of Moon to flip him
face-down, does this reset his effect if he is somehow flipped face-up in attack,
allowing him to again attack twice in the same Battle face, ignoring the fact
that he already attacked once,

or

Will he only be able to carry out his second attack, if he can still attack
at all?

2. Same scenario as above, only substitute attacking a face-down Tsukuyomi.

Thanks!

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

If you attack once (or twice), and then after the attack "Master Monk" is flipped-face down by "Tsukuyomi" or "Book of Moon",
you could activate "Desert Sunlight" then "Final Attack Orders" and attack 2 more times.

Dan Scheidegger
Jr. Game Designer
Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG R&D
Upper Deck Entertainment

 

[Digital Jedi]

And there's the problem.

No official ever said "why" Master Monk gets to attack again, or forgets that it already attacked.

Like i said, the judge's list post made no explanation, and because of that it should be ignored.

You can assume all you want why this might be true, and all your explanations will be based on assumptions.

And should this ruling appear on the OFFICIAL site, it would require us to make assumptions to explain it.

But its not an official ruling, and there is nothing to support such assumptions previous to this post.

Until they give a reason why this ruling should be true, it would require more assumptions to explain than to just declare it wrong.

And that's why it should be ignored.

I repeat, when did the Official Judges List stop being official?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

I repeat, when did the Official Judges List stop being official?

Arout the time the Netrepâ„¢ Files stopped.

Ruling are made by Konami, as its their game.

The judge's list is a UDE endeavour. And thus not an official source of ruling.

Afterall, if the judge's list rulings were official, it would be in Ronin:

Yes, because as Kevin Tewart has mentioned ad nauseum, that (the rulings on www.yugioh-card.com is the only set of rulings approved by Konami. The rulings you see on the Judge List are NOT considered official in any circle, even UDE's.

EDIT:
The judge's list is an official source of "information" (but not rulings.)
So for example, when you ahve 2 rulings that clearly contradict each other on the FAQ, then the judge list post saying which one is right and which one is wrong is to be considered the "official" word. (Dark Magician of Chaos comes to mind). ANd with poorly worded rulings that might be taken different ways, the Judge's List offeres the official interpretation of that ruling.

 

[anthonyj]

The Master Monk ruling simply clarifies that the monsters that are granted multiple attacks are having the effect reset and thus they can attack the number of times they are allowed to attack again after they have been flipped back up. Master Monk, Mataza the Zapper, Hayabusa Knight, Asura Priest are all straight multiple attackers.

The Tyrant Dragon, BLS-Envoy type multiple attackers are not going to be able to attack again because the attack Triggers after the standard attack for the Battle Phase. We discussed this whole situation back in October. We get clarification six months later that what we had discussed and I believe everybody aGreed was likely true is in fact exactly how it works and we wind up with another three page thread about the same topic? http://www.cogonline.net/threads.12570&page=1&pp=15&highlight=asura+priest

 

[Kyhotae]

The Monster doesn't go back because control issues are irrelavent when a monster is flipped-face down after taken by Snatch Steal. But the game still knws it's a monster. It would have to know in order to allow it to remain in a Monster Card Zone. Otherwise Embodiment of Apophis could remain in a Monster Zone when it's flipped face-down. But instead it has to return to the Trap Zone it orginated from.

Why would control issues be irrelevant if it was still considered "there" by the game? If the game recognizes the monster as present on the field, it should also recognize that the monster is the opponent's, and so, it should switch back to the opponent when "Snatch Steal" even though it's face down. But that doesn't happen.

It's considered a monster for the purpose of being in the way of another monster's attack, but the game doesn't consider it a functional monster until it is flipped face-up. When it's face-down, it's considered "not there." It's just a wall. The game doesn't know what it is until it's face-up.

"Master Monk"s effect can't be "reset" because it's a continuous effect. It never activates, it's always active as long as it's face-up on the field. The reason it can attack 4 times if flipped face-down then face-up is because it is considered a new monster that hasn't had a chance to attack by the game because it fell off the radar, not because the effect resets.

Oh, and Kevin Tewart has always said that the judges list is not official.

 

[masterwoo0]

I think for the most part, I've pretty much kept my personal thoughts in check, but I have got to say that you have the most unorthodox way of looking at this game I have witnessed in probably a few weeks, and I say that because you arent alone, just the most "insistent", and honestly I would hate to Judge or Play in any Tournament that you were involved in because your the kind of individual that causes dissention among the ranks, and just from the different viewpoints you have expressed in some of the post you've made, I can see many players either getting totally erroneous information, or, just giving the game to their opponent in frustration.

Now I am by no means saying that I am 100% correct 100% of the time, but I'm just not going to "argue" (because debate just doesnt apply anymore) for the sake of going against nearly everyone else who doesnt see it like you do. It's like you have invented your own game to go along side the one everyone else is playing.

Take it for what it's worth. I dont think I have had a reason to blatantly direct any comments such as the ones I have now done, to anyone until today. But, I feel "I" needed too, since this is my thread, my Judge List Post, AND the correct answer.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Where are you getting you information that face-down monsters are not considered monsters?

 

[Kyhotae]

I explain it the way it makes the most sense to me. Maybe it's unorthodox, but it's usually not incorrect. Just my way of looking at it. My "information" about how the game doesn't consider face-downs to be "really there" is based on the way the game treats them.

Consider:
1. Flipping a monster face-up is usually considered the same and summoning a monster from your hand (i.e. "Trap Hole")

2. Face-down monsters cannot be targeted for effects like "Fissure" or "Snatch Steal"

3. A monster acquired by "Snatch Steal" does not return to the opponent after it's flipped-face down and "Snatch Steal" is destroyed (my original thinking is that it should go back after it's flipped face-up again because it's not your monster and the only thing keeping it on your side of the field was "Snatch Steal" being equipped to it, which it no longer was).

One of the discussions I had about "Snatch Steal" with skey23 included his explanation that "Snatch Steal" tries to return the monster when it's destroyed by the flip face-down, but notices that the monster it was equipped to isn't there, so the face-down monster stays put. When it's later flipped up, the game considers it a brand new monster (and YOUR monster because it appeared on your side of the field) because it fell off the radar for a bit. That explanation made the most sense to me, so I went with it. I assumed that he got his theory from here, but maybe I was wrong.

Masterwoo0: I spend my free time reading rulings. I enjoy perusing the judges list. Luckily for you, I am geographically challenged, so I doubt I'll ever become an official judge, but I know more about how this game is played than most EVERYONE I play in this area. I follow all the rulings. If I have a question, I look it up. If I can't find an answer, I extrapolate as best I can from existing effects/rulings for an answer. I'm sorry you don't agree with my thinking, but, in the absence of an official ruling, I'm just as much "right" as anyone else offering up their opinion here.

It's not like the things I say change the way the game is played because of the way I think about the game-play. I still let people activate "Ultimate Offering" in their opponent's Battle Phase, even though I don't agree that they should be able to. I let "Demise, King of Armageddon" stay on the field even if he's flipped face-down in a chain to his effect, even though "Levia Dragon - Daedalus" has the same effect and is destroyed in the same circumstance. I cause no "dissention" in my area, but if I disagree with a ruling, I will seek clarification and I will express that I disagree with it the whole time I am abiding by it in the duel I'm playing.

Forums ARE for discussing, right? Am I an exception to that?

 

[anthonyj]

Why would control issues be irrelevant if it was still considered "there" by the game? If the game recognizes the monster as present on the field, it should also recognize that the monster is the opponent's, and so, it should switch back to the opponent when "Snatch Steal" even though it's face down. But that doesn't happen.

It's considered a monster for the purpose of being in the way of another monster's attack, but the game doesn't consider it a functional monster until it is flipped face-up. When it's face-down, it's considered "not there." It's just a wall. The game doesn't know what it is until it's face-up.

"Master Monk"s effect can't be "reset" because it's a continuous effect. It never activates, it's always active as long as it's face-up on the field. The reason it can attack 4 times if flipped face-down then face-up is because it is considered a new monster that hasn't had a chance to attack by the game because it fell off the radar, not because the effect resets.

Oh, and Kevin Tewart has always said that the judges list is not official.

It's seems as though possibly you have existed entirely within your own world in regards to terminology, rulings, and basic game mechanics up until the day you signed on here. I have absolutely no problem with a good debate. In fact I actually enjoy it quite a bit. But we have to find common ground in order to begin a debate and I am consistently finding there to be little if any ground that can be aGreed upon in this game with our discussions.

Honestly, please do a search for Snatch Steal and Book of Moon and read through the dozens of pages that have been debated about the why and how of control here in the rules forum. Or I can provide a link to one of the better ones here: http://www.cogonline.net/threads.13232&page=1&pp=15&highlight=snatch+steal+book+moon

here is a link for why a reflippable monster does not reset it's effect once it has flipped face-down: http://www.cogonline.net/threads.10584&highlight=snatch+steal

A face-down card in the monster zone is a Monster. Even if it is actually a Spell or Trap it is a monster (reference Magical Hats). The monster does have a name, it does have stats, the game is aware of those, it only treats the opponent and certain card effects as not knowing or not able to interact with those criteria because they are considered "unknown" within the limited scope of certain game mechanics.

Yes Master Monk's effect is a Continuous Effect, which simply means it does not "activate" or begin a chain, the effect allows it to attack twice in the Battle Phase. If it is turned face-down after it has attacked and then winds up face-up in attack position again while you are still in the Battle Phase it's effect is once again available to allow Master Monk to attack twice during the Battle Phase. That is the nature of the multiple attack effect vs. one-attack per round game mechanic. It was discussed in great detail in the thread referenced already. Please read through it here: http://www.cogonline.net/threads.12570&page=1&pp=15

The forums are a source of information. We are happy to discuss, debate, educate and speculate but this is feeling more and more like an argument clinic from the Flying Circus. I don't want to play Palin to your Cleese.

 

[Digital Jedi]

I explain it the way it makes the most sense to me. Maybe it's unorthodox, but it's usually not incorrect. Just my way of looking at it. My "information" about how the game doesn't consider face-downs to be "really there" is based on the way the game treats them.

Fair enough. But you must be willing to accept that the Game Rules are not always going to agree with a self-stylized rationalizations.

Consider:
1. Flipping a monster face-up is usually considered the same and summoning a monster from your hand (i.e. "Trap Hole")

For example, flipping a monster face-up is never conidered the same as summoning one from your hand. Trap Hole works against Flip Summons because its text says it work against Flip Summons. If it were to be flipped for any other reason, Trap Hole could not be activated.

2. Face-down monsters cannot be targeted for effects like "Fissure" or "Snatch Steal"

Aside from the fact that one of these effects doesn't target, these cards either look for the stats of a monster or for a face-up monster. So in one instance, you have no stats to look at, and in another instance, the monster doesn't meet the citeria for the effect. And aside from that, if face-downs weren't considered monsters, then Dak Hole and Raigeki wouldn't touch them

3. A monster acquired by "Snatch Steal" does not return to the opponent after it's flipped-face down and "Snatch Steal" is destroyed (my original thinking is that it should go back after it's flipped face-up again because it's not your monster and the only thing keeping it on your side of the field was "Snatch Steal" being equipped to it, which it no longer was).

One of the discussions I had about "Snatch Steal" with skey23 included his explanation that "Snatch Steal" tries to return the monster when it's destroyed by the flip face-down, but notices that the monster it was equipped to isn't there, so the face-down monster stays put. When it's later flipped up, the game considers it a brand new monster (and YOUR monster because it appeared on your side of the field) because it fell off the radar for a bit. That explanation made the most sense to me, so I went with it. I assumed that he got his theory from here, but maybe I was wrong.

I might have expressed myself poorly on the last thread this came up in, but infact, monsters do not return to there owners by default. (I think I expressed this backwards on the last thread).

Look over the mechanics of previous Control Changers. Not everyone agrees with this assesment. Some think that they should go back automatically. But rulings show that not to be the case. A monster taken by Change of Heart or Mind Control returns because the effect returns it. A monster taken by Snatch Steal returns it because its continuous control is severed. But only when it can reference which monster it controlled. A monster taken by Creature Swap does not return at all, bcause nothing tells it to.

Masterwoo0: I spend my free time reading rulings. I enjoy perusing the judges list. Luckily for you, I am geographically challenged, so I doubt I'll ever become an official judge, but I know more about how this game is played than most EVERYONE I play in this area. I follow all the rulings. If I have a question, I look it up. If I can't find an answer, I extrapolate as best I can from existing effects/rulings for an answer. I'm sorry you don't agree with my thinking, but, in the absence of an official ruling, I'm just as much "right" as anyone else offering up their opinion here.

Not everyone here is an official judge. In spite of that, you can become a level 1 online fairly easily. However, one cannot simply be right because some rulings, mechanics and game plays have to be extrapolated. It is entirely possible to be way off the mark.

It's not like the things I say change the way the game is played because of the way I think about the game-play. I still let people activate "Ultimate Offering" in their opponent's Battle Phase, even though I don't agree that they should be able to. I let "Demise, King of Armageddon" stay on the field even if he's flipped face-down in a chain to his effect, even though "Levia Dragon - Daedalus" has the same effect and is destroyed in the same circumstance. I cause no "dissention" in my area, but if I disagree with a ruling, I will seek clarification and I will express that I disagree with it the whole time I am abiding by it in the duel I'm playing.

Forums ARE for discussing, right? Am I an exception to that?

No, not at all. But as I said, inerpretations can still be incorrect, especialy when some facts are established and not open to interpretation. Looking at things in a different way is all well and good, but a different viewpoint must still be able to mesh with every other ruling. There must be cohision or there will only be confusion.

 

[masterwoo0]

At some point in time, even a cornered animal realizes he has two choices, give up, or fight your way out.

There has never been to the best of my knowledge, a Game Rule or Game Mechanic that would support your saying that a monster flipped face-down becomes a new monster. If that were indeed the case, I could flip summon Swarm of Scarabs, use his effect to flip him face-down, use Desert Sunlight to flip him face-up again, and since he is now a "new monster" again, I could use his effect to flip himself face-down again, or, I could just flip summon him again to destroy a monster and just keep doing that because everytime I flip him face-down, he becomes a new monster.

The only time a monster becomes a new monster is when he is removed from the field and sent to the Graveyard, Removed from play Pile, or returned to hand or deck, and back to the Field. Flipping a monster face-down does not erase the fact that he was previously summoned to the field. The only thing it does is remove all stats for purposes of targeting or SOME external effects that require the use of a Specific Monster.

That, in itself, does not create a new monster upon flipping it face-up.

The statement you made about Twinheaded Beast being a new monster if returned to hand by Beast Soul Swap is indeed a true statement, and one I can agree with, solely based upon the fact that it WAS returned to hand, and Special Summoned to the field, making it a new monster for purposes of Attacks and Effects (curiously, I played the GX GBA Game, and my comnputer opponent used Snatch Steal on my Goblin Attack Force, attacked with it, and on my next turn, I returned it to hand with Penguin Soldier and summoned it, but it couldn't attack. How strange...). This is a basic mechanic, compared to using Call of the Haunted on a monster destroyed during the same Battle Phase.

We are all aware of the "without logic" rulings that we get from Konami. While some are very undesireable, that does not excuse the fact that certain things will always be the same.

1. A monster only gets one attack per turn, unless an effect states otherwise.

2. A monster's effect will be reset if he is flipped face-down.

3. A monster can only be summoned face-up to the field by manual placement, or the effect of a Spell, Trap, or Monster Card. A Spell or Trap Card Effect that flips a face-down monster face-up does NOT summon it.

Snatch Steal gives you or your opponent temporary control of a monster. If it is destroyed whle the equipped monster is face-up, the monster is returned to its original owner.

If the monster is flipped face-down, Snatch Steal is destroyed by Game Mechanics and no attempt is made to send the monster back to its opponent, as there is no "face-up" monster to return, and Snatch Steal has no condition to return a face-down monster to the original controller, unlike Change of Heart.

Not knowing what a monster is face-down does not make it a new monster. It just makes it unknown to your opponent, as they are unable to specifically designate it as a target by type, attribute, or monster effect, ie, I cannot tribute your face-down "Dark" monster for an effect, using Soul Exchange, because as your opponent, I do not know what your card is, as a normal Game Mechanic. If I use Change of Heart, the monster is now under my control, and I can now tribute the same monster for the effect.

Debate is debate. Arguing is arguing. No one is asking you to submit to our way of thinking, but you are not using adequate material to bolster support for your point of view, which is decidely "different" from the majority of those who have posted here.

As for those who would say to "ignore" the ruling from the Judge List, I say that is a hypocritical statement, as many times that same individual would solicit action from the Judge List for answers to many of the questions we have had that couldnt be resolved here. What makes "this one question" different?

You cant play mom against pop here. The Judge List is either acceptable as a source of Rulings, in conjunction with the "slow to update Konami Rulings", or not.

 

[Kyhotae]

Perhaps some of you are just having a gutteral reaction to my posts because of the "targeting" debate we had earlier, but I'm not arguing anything. I am explaining why I believe the extra attacks are allowed. Well, I'm TRYING anyway, but maybe I'm not doing such a great job. The concepts I am appealing to may or may not be "game mechanics" perse, but they are the characteristics of how I see some of the effects resolve. All I can do is explain the best I can. In an effort to continue that, consider this:

I'm not sure if I said that the game doesn't consider a face-down monster to be a monster or not and I'm too lazy to check. So, assuming that I DID say that, what I MEANT to say is that the game doesn't consider it to be really "there" (please note the quotation marks, because I know that the game knows that it's literally there) when it comes to whether or not it's a functional monster. I think this because of how "Snatch Steal" works out if the monster is flipped face-down while equipped with it.

If the ONLY reason that "Snatch Steal" doesn't send a flipped face-down card back to the contoller is because it doesn't have a condition to allow for sending a face-down monster back to the controller, then my original thinking of how it should be played would be correct (but it's not). The next time the monster is flipped face-up, it would instantly return to the opponent's side of the field once it notices that "Snatch Steal" isn't keeping it there anymore.

Because it was flipped face-down, the game loses sight of whose monter it was (it wasn't "really there" anymore), so once it flips face-up, the game sees a new monster on your side of the field, so decides it must be your monster. This is the only way it makes sense to me. If it just reset the effect and the game remembers which monster it was and who it belonged to, it should return once it is face-up again.

Another thing I want to mention is that you keep saying that "Master Monk" attacks twice because of his effect. While this is kind of true, the reason he is able to attack AT ALL is that he is a monster in attack position. He is not allowed to attack because he has an effect, he is allowed to attack TWICE because of his effect. The effect only gives him a SECOND attack, not two attacks. The whole "reseting effect" thing falls down there for me because if he attacked twice before being flipped face-down, he should not be able to attack the third time when flipped back face-up because his initial attack had already been declared and monsters that have already attacked cannot declare an attack again even if flipped down then up (according to what you've posted). Does that make any kind of sense to you guys?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

As for those who would say to "ignore" the ruling from the Judge List, I say that is a hypocritical statement, as many times that same individual would solicit action from the Judge List for answers to many of the questions we have had that couldnt be resolved here. What makes "this one question" different?

You cant play mom against pop here. The Judge List is either acceptable as a source of Rulings, in conjunction with the "slow to update Konami Rulings", or not.

--The judge's list is a source tt interpret the rulings, to settle contradictions, and such. The judge's list can also alert us to changes and errors that cannot be published (Fairy King Truesdale) or take time to correct (Big Bang Shot)

It has never been a source of Raw rulings. And does not have the power to simply declare somthing like " The World is Flat". (Konami on the other hand does have that power).

This post on the judge's list meets no burden of evidence no matter how lenient:

Its been established that a card does not forget that it has declared an attack through rulings about position changes.

For the Judge's list to contradict that it has to say how it contradicts that ruling.

And to assume this post to be correct would ASK questions, rather than answer questions, as it requires assumptions on to which cases are correct:

• 
  A) Master Monk's Text does not accurately reflect what it does:
  e.g. It should be "This card cannot declare a (regular) attack. This card may use its effect to attack up to two time in your Battle Phase. Ordinary monsters won't be able to declare another attack if flipped face-down and back up to attack position.
  ---i) It could still change its battle position because it didn't declare a real attack.
  ---ii) It's effect should have a clause that says it will not be able to change its battle position, but this effect will also be reset upon turning face-down (So it could be flip summoned in Main Phase 2)
  ---iii)It's no position change is an effect that cannot be reset.
  B)Other monsters won't necessarily have an effect to match Master Monk's actual effect. So for example Queen of Oblivion might attack normally once, then use its effect to attack a second time, so if flipped face-down it could use its effect to attack again only once after returning face-up
  C) Does a similar ruling apply to Total Defense Shogun, or is that still considered a normal attack

• 
  A monster doesn't forget that it has declared an attack. However each face-up attack position monster is given one attack "ticket" that is redeemed when it is to declare an attack. So although the card Master Monk remembers that it has already attacked. The game sees it as a new monster and will give it a new "ticket" when it suddenly reappears. So any monster will be able to attack again if flipped face-down and face-up, but it won't forget that it has changed its position.
  --A) The game gives a ticket to every monster that appears in attack position. So the face-down part is irrelevant, even a monster going to face-up defense then back to attack can declare another attack.
  ----i) a ruling will be added that the 2 position changes will have to have happend apart, and not presque-concurring to prevent Goblin Attack Force abuse.
  --B) The game has to forget the monster for it to be given another ticket after. So only face-down defense position.
  --C) Does Total Defense Shogun ever get a ticket in the first place?

So if you assume this post to be true, as a judge you will be creating MORE scenarios that you will not have the answer for.

Or you take Oxxam's Razor path: and stick with the stance that monsters never forget attacking until leaving the field and you will have the correct answer for all the situations.

I think its no-brainer.

 

[masterwoo0]

Like I said, there is no rule saying he can't have his effect reset to attack twice more. Like anything else, I have to assume that if they took 4 to 5 months to answer my question, they just didnt "get around to it", and decide to answer it now since its been so long.

Every new ruling we get nearly breaks down an older pre-existing ruling. What on Earth leads you to believe they are going to overhaul anything to make everything else work or not work?

It could be months more before Konami updates the actual FAQ to reflect a change, when this could be one of the things they expect us to already now. Look at Tenkabito Shien. Are there any rulings under his effects? No. If I say he acts just like Elemental Hero Wildheart, would I be correct in this assumption? No. Why? Because, according to your analysis, he doesnt have a ruling from Konami, so until he does, I cant say that Negate Attack doesnt prevent him from a successful attack like Elemental Hero Wildheart.

That's what I mean by saying you cant play mom against pop. If you are going to compare on one hand a equally comparable monster that has no listed ruling, then thats a interpretation made in the absence of Official Rulings. An Official Ruling from one monster does not make it official for another, as evidenced by Demise, King of Armageddon and Levia-Dragon - Daedalus.

 

[Digital Jedi]

I'm not sure if I said that the game doesn't consider a face-down monster to be a monster or not and I'm too lazy to check. So, assuming that I DID say that, what I MEANT to say is that the game doesn't consider it to be really "there" (please note the quotation marks, because I know that the game knows that it's literally there) when it comes to whether or not it's a functional monster. I think this because of how "Snatch Steal" works out if the monster is flipped face-down while equipped with it.

It's an interesting rationalization, but the point we're trying to make is that it's not the correct way of phrasing it. Saying that it's not technically "there" is significantly different from how we've been instructed to view it. This is an example of how a viewpoint must gel with the actual mechanics.

If the ONLY reason that "Snatch Steal" doesn't send a flipped face-down card back to the contoller is because it doesn't have a condition to allow for sending a face-down monster back to the controller, then my original thinking of how it should be played would be correct (but it's not). The next time the monster is flipped face-up, it would instantly return to the opponent's side of the field once it notices that "Snatch Steal" isn't keeping it there anymore.

Because it was flipped face-down, the game loses sight of whose monster it was (it wasn't "really there" anymore), so once it flips face-up, the game sees a new monster on your side of the field, so decides it must be your monster. This is the only way it makes sense to me. If it just reset the effect and the game remembers which monster it was and who it belonged to, it should return once it is face-up again.

As I mentioned before, there is no ruling or mechanics that indicates that monsters return to their original controlers by default. The thing that makes Snatch Steal wiggy is that it is an Equip Card and functions completely different from any other control changer. Creature Swap, for example, gives both players a monster, but there is no mechanic returning them to the original owners control. Change of Heart on the other hand has an effect that both seizes the monter AND returns it. Without the returning effect it wouldn't return.

But the continuous effect of Snatch Steal only applies to a face-up monster. Destroy the card and the Continuous Effect is severed and control is returned. It essentially let's go of the face-up monster. Flip the monster face-down, though, and the equip is destroyed, but now there is no face-up monster let go of. There is still a monster there, but equips have no bearing on face-down monster due to Game Mechanics.

Another thing I want to mention is that you keep saying that "Master Monk" attacks twice because of his effect. While this is kind of true, the reason he is able to attack AT ALL is that he is a monster in attack position. He is not allowed to attack because he has an effect, he is allowed to attack TWICE because of his effect. The effect only gives him a SECOND attack, not two attacks. The whole "reseting effect" thing falls down there for me because if he attacked twice before being flipped face-down, he should not be able to attack the third time when flipped back face-up because his initial attack had already been declared and monsters that have already attacked cannot declare an attack again even if flipped down then up (according to what you've posted). Does that make any kind of sense to you guys?

This is the very reason we are trying to interpret the message we recieved. Since a monster cannot attack agian once it has attacked already, regardless if has been flipped face down or not, then an effect which grants it a second attack wouldn't be one that can be reset. It would be mechanicly impossible.

Past experience tells us that either the message is in error, or there that this is a card with a wholey different effect. And since we haven't recieved anything to indicate that other double attackers follow this same bizare set of rules, we can only extrapolate what must be the case. Within the rules of course.

It should be noted that Master Monk text reads somewhat differently from the other double attackers. Is this indication that his attacks are purely effect based? I don't know. Possibly. But that is only one possible explanation and the only one I can think of to rationalize the differences from it and Mataza.

 

[Digital Jedi]

--The judge's list is a source tt interpret the rulings, to settle contradictions, and such. The judge's list can also alert us to changes and errors that cannot be published (Fairy King Truesdale) or take time to correct (Big Bang Shot)

It has never been a source of Raw rulings. And does not have the power to simply declare somthing like " The World is Flat". (Konami on the other hand does have that power).

This post on the judge's list meets no burden of evidence no matter how lenient:

Its been established that a card does not forget that it has declared an attack through rulings about position changes.

For the Judge's list to contradict that it has to say how it contradicts that ruling.

And to assume this post to be correct would ASK questions, rather than answer questions, as it requires assumptions on to which cases are correct:

• 
  A) Master Monk's Text does not accurately reflect what it does:
  e.g. It should be "This card cannot declare a (regular) attack. This card may use its effect to attack up to two time in your Battle Phase. Ordinary monsters won't be able to declare another attack if flipped face-down and back up to attack position.
  ---i) It could still change its battle position because it didn't declare a real attack.
  ---ii) It's effect should have a clause that says it will not be able to change its battle position, but this effect will also be reset upon turning face-down (So it could be flip summoned in Main Phase 2)
  ---iii)It's no position change is an effect that cannot be reset.
  B)Other monsters won't necessarily have an effect to match Master Monk's actual effect. So for example Queen of Oblivion might attack normally once, then use its effect to attack a second time, so if flipped face-down it could use its effect to attack again only once after returning face-up
  C) Does a similar ruling apply to Total Defense Shogun, or is that still considered a normal attack

• 
  A monster doesn't forget that it has declared an attack. However each face-up attack position monster is given one attack "ticket" that is redeemed when it is to declare an attack. So although the card Master Monk remembers that it has already attacked. The game sees it as a new monster and will give it a new "ticket" when it suddenly reappears. So any monster will be able to attack again if flipped face-down and face-up, but it won't forget that it has changed its position.
  --A) The game gives a ticket to every monster that appears in attack position. So the face-down part is irrelevant, even a monster going to face-up defense then back to attack can declare another attack.
  ----i) a ruling will be added that the 2 position changes will have to have happend apart, and not presque-concurring to prevent Goblin Attack Force abuse.
  --B) The game has to forget the monster for it to be given another ticket after. So only face-down defense position.
  --C) Does Total Defense Shogun ever get a ticket in the first place?

So if you assume this post to be true, as a judge you will be creating MORE scenarios that you will not have the answer for.

Or you take Oxxam's Razor path: and stick with the stance that monsters never forget attacking until leaving the field and you will have the correct answer for all the situations.

I think its no-brainer.

DaGuy, it seems your nitpiking here. Of course, all of know that the Judges List doesn't always make sense. No argument there. But we also know that waiting for response from them is like waiting for the next issue of Battle Chasers. We may or may not see it. We also know that the reason we don't get messages from them quickly and the reason we don't get thorough explanations when we do get answers is because they cant scratch their collective backsides wthout word from Konami first. They are so intent on not givig misinformation, that they just don't give enough, often having the same effect the are trying to avoid.

It looks like in this case your saying we sholdn't regard the message becase it doesn't make sense to you. But for years the only thing we had to indicate that Ultimate Offering wored the way it did was from a Judges List message (and I'm not refering to the one that said "Konami said so"). Should we have ignored that message just becaue it didn't make any sense? This is, effectivley, what you've instructed us to do. I for one woulsn't advoacte to ignore a instruction because it doesn't make sense. Aren't we used to things not making sense at this point?

 

[Kyhotae]

Well then, can I get an acknowledgement that my theory, though you don't seem to like the way it was worded, could explain the thinking behind this ruling? Is there any documented ruling or post to the judges list that confirms that a monster that is flipped down then up during the same Battle Phase cannot attack again if it attacked before being flipped face-down? I don't remember reading one.

 

[anthonyj]

--The judge's list is a source tt interpret the rulings, to settle contradictions, and such. The judge's list can also alert us to changes and errors that cannot be published (Fairy King Truesdale) or take time to correct (Big Bang Shot)

It has never been a source of Raw rulings. And does not have the power to simply declare somthing like " The World is Flat". (Konami on the other hand does have that power).

This post on the judge's list meets no burden of evidence no matter how lenient:

Its been established that a card does not forget that it has declared an attack through rulings about position changes.

For the Judge's list to contradict that it has to say how it contradicts that ruling.

And to assume this post to be correct would ASK questions, rather than answer questions, as it requires assumptions on to which cases are correct:

• 
  A) Master Monk's Text does not accurately reflect what it does:
  e.g. It should be "This card cannot declare a (regular) attack. This card may use its effect to attack up to two time in your Battle Phase. Ordinary monsters won't be able to declare another attack if flipped face-down and back up to attack position.
  ---i) It could still change its battle position because it didn't declare a real attack.
  ---ii) It's effect should have a clause that says it will not be able to change its battle position, but this effect will also be reset upon turning face-down (So it could be flip summoned in Main Phase 2)
  ---iii)It's no position change is an effect that cannot be reset.
  B)Other monsters won't necessarily have an effect to match Master Monk's actual effect. So for example Queen of Oblivion might attack normally once, then use its effect to attack a second time, so if flipped face-down it could use its effect to attack again only once after returning face-up
  C) Does a similar ruling apply to Total Defense Shogun, or is that still considered a normal attack

A monster doesn't forget that it has declared an attack. However each face-up attack position monster is given one attack "ticket" that is redeemed when it is to declare an attack. So although the card Master Monk remembers that it has already attacked. The game sees it as a new monster and will give it a new "ticket" when it suddenly reappears. So any monster will be able to attack again if flipped face-down and face-up, but it won't forget that it has changed its position.
--A) The game gives a ticket to every monster that appears in attack position. So the face-down part is irrelevant, even a monster going to face-up defense then back to attack can declare another attack.

The Continuous Effect of Master Monk overides the standard game mechanic of the one ticket per turn. The effect does not state that this monster gets one additional attack after the standard attack the monster is entitled to via Game Mechanic. The effect actually overides the Game Mechanic altogether by stating "This card can attack twice during the same turn. Thus the "ticket" is entirely replaced by the "effect ticket". This very same "effect ticket" has been with us with Asura Priest in that the tickets aren't given out at the beginning of the Battle Phase but rather are self generating as monsters enter the field that are new attack targets. "Effect tickets" are also issued for circumstances such as Last Turn. Unless there is a secret ruling I'm not aware of that a monster which battled during the Special Battle Phase can no longer take it's regular attack during the standard Battle Phase?)

----i) a ruling will be added that the 2 position changes will have to have happend apart, and not presque-concurring to prevent Goblin Attack Force abuse.

The Master Monk effect that overides the standard game mechanic has nothing at all to do with overiding the position changes. If it has attacked once, twice, or however many times the circumstances wind up allowing it has by the basic Game Mechanic of Battle Position Changes "attacked" and is thus ineligible to manually change the Battle Position. Again this is not the game forgetting that the monster attacked it is the "effect" granting attacks and "effects" do reset when a monster is flipped face-down (except for the reflippers which have a ruling all their own to keep that from being abused).

--B) The game has to forget the monster for it to be given another ticket after. So only face-down defense position.

The game has not forgotten. This is simple effect > regular game mechanic.

--C) Does Total Defense Shogun ever get a ticket in the first place?

Again this is an "effect" allowing Total Defense Shogun to attack while in Defense. Whether that effect would allow Total Defense Shogun to attack a second time if turned face-down and then back to face-up is something that would hinge on the interpretation of the effect by Konami (in other words, the effect could simply be allowing the monster to attack as if it were in attack position even though it is in defense position in which case it would still be hampered by the "single ticket" game mechanic. Or it could be the effect is granting an attack purely based on the effect itself and as such may actually allow another attack if flip flop was achieved.)

So if you assume this post to be true, as a judge you will be creating MORE scenarios that you will not have the answer for.

Or you take Oxxam's Razor path: and stick with the stance that monsters never forget attacking until leaving the field and you will have the correct answer for all the situations.

I think its no-brainer.

This has just been explained logically and completely within the bounds of the rulings and game mechanics that we have been given. Why would MORE scenarios not have answers?

 

[Kyhotae]

I really don't think that "Master Monk"s effect wording is so significantly different from the other double-attackers to warant the assumption that his effect is allowing him to attack. I have never heard of this "effect ticket" for attacking you're talking about (maybe I missed something). It makes more sense that his effect allows a second attack, not two attacks.

 

[masterwoo0]

I really don't think that "Master Monk"s effect wording is so significantly different from the other double-attackers to warant the assumption that his effect is allowing him to attack. I have never heard of this "effect ticket" for attacking you're talking about (maybe I missed something). It makes more sense that his effect allows a second attack, not two attacks.

Now you begin to see how adding your "own" ideas can easily cause someone to be confused on correct terminology.

There is no Yugioh Term for "effect ticket". It was made up by a CoG member to associate an attack being used, and how it directly related to one attack, one monster, "one ticket" used to attack one monster.

Someone of limited game experience could very well walk away from this thread and introduce this "effect ticket" into play at a tournament, saying that it is a new ruling.

 

[anthonyj]

Master Monk: This card can attack twice during the same turn.

Mataza the Zapper: This monster can attack twice during the same Battle Phase.

Hayabusa Knight: This card can attack twice during the same Battle Phase.

Unless Turn and Battle Phase are somehow the difference (or card/monster) I'd say this ruling would definitely address monsters that have an effect which specifies overriding the standard attack mechanic.

I have never heard of this "effect ticket" for attacking you're talking about (maybe I missed something). It makes more sense that his effect allows a second attack, not two attacks.

The "ticket" concept is something I believe Simon suggested 6 months ago as a visual description of the Game Mechanic for the "single attack".

The effect doesn't say "one additional attack after the regular one". It says: This card can attack twice during the same turn. As opposed to Tyrant Dragon's: after this monster's first attack of your Battle Phase, this monster can attack once again during the same Battle Phase.

Asura Priest's effect most definitely doesn't grant "additional attacks after the first regular attack" it overides the single attack mechanic and says "This card can attack all monsters on your opponent's side of the field once each."