Old Ruling: Summoner Of Illusions

B

bishop

Thief of Always
I cannot find a retraction/correction/alternative to an old ruling concerning Summoner of Illusions and Fiend Skull Dragon. I was under the impression that it had, indeed, been changed from the original ruling, but I cannot find it anywhere.

The original ruling was the Fiend Skull Dragon negated the effect of Summoner of Illusions and was not destroyed at the end of the turn. There has been a lot of controversy over this ruling as of late, but I still cannot find that this ruling has been made obsolete. :(

Personally, I understand the ruling as is and I think changing it would be a shame, but I'd like to confirm this somehow. :D

If anyone can find it, please pass it along to me.

Thanks!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
About 2-3 months ago when we were discussing this topic I sent in a post to the judge's board requesting a confirmation and an explination of the game mechanic....but obviously we've seen nothing in reply since.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So did I and it was ignored as well. I do, however, understand this ruling if it is still current. It makes perfect sense when one reads that actual card text for Fiend Skull Dragon.

Fiend Skull Dragon does not negate Flip Effects per se (It does, but ....). It negates all the effects of Flip Effect Monsters. ("As long as this card remains face-up on the field, negate all Flip Effect Monsters' effects.")

This would include negating all the effects of Summoner of Illusions.

Or so I believe the original ruling was intended to express.

novastar: yeah, but I was under the impression that the ruling had changed. I was looking for a retraction of that ruling. I personally don't think there has been, but a player swore up and down that it had. I can't get the Judge's List to respond. Apparently John can't either. So I guess that would indicate that it hasn't. But I believe my logic is correct too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Nope. Nope. No problem. I just believe that the player was on too much crack. But at the same time, until I actually sat down and wrote this out and looked at it again, I was really doubting my sanity on keeping up with rulings.

Personally speaking, I think this would make an excellent L1 test question. It's all about reading carefully the card text in question (something even I hadn't done until I wrote it out here).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You could say yes and no to that.

This is a Continuous Effect (FSD), and i believe the main arguement here is that the resolution of an effect that is already resolving cannot be interupted be an activation or a Continuous Effect becoming active.

Similar to how Jinzo recieves the 800 ATK boost from Rope of Life, since his negation does not become active until after the effect of Rope of Life fully resolves.

The text might suggest that it should be negated, but general extrapolation from rulings and mechanics does seem to suggest otherwise.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
When a player loses by a card effect rather than just plain old "battle", it seems like they ALWAYS try to use the "the-ruling-changed-and-you-can't-do-that" way out.

Same thing happened to me at a tournament using Marauding Captain and Shining Angel.

Arguing Player: "There's been a change and you can't summon a non warrior with Marauding Captain's effect."

Me: "Since when? Last time I checked the errata list, Marauding Captain wasnt on it!"

Arguing Player: "I called UDE personally and that's what they told me!"

Ruling Judge: "I'm unaware of any changes to his effect, until I see otherwise, the summons was correct."

Me: "Marauding Captain and Shining Angel attack your life points directly for game...."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Interesting perspective, though I don't recall that Summoner of Illusions was a continuous effect. If I recall, it is a condition placed on the monster and, as we know, conditions can be altered/broken by other effects. Please correct me if I'm in error here. :(
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Right. I agree. However, Summoner of Illusions is an effect that is still capable of being negated. Since it's not a Flip Effect that is negated, but merely any effect of a Flip Effect monster, this is an effect that would be negated by Fiend Skull Dragon.

Or so I would think the logic is for the ruling. Based on the card text, I would agree with that. Given the craziness of this game and its rulings, I would also have no doubt that this is either incorrect or just another exception to the rules.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I always looked at Summoner of Illusions last line of text as a condition, much like Magical Scientist, not part of the effect. By all means, please correct me if I'm wrong. Notice that the last line of text on Summoner of Illusions even refers to the effect having already been activated.

Summoner of Illusions text:

FLIP: Tribute 1 monster on your side of the field (excluding this monster). Special Summon 1 Fusion Monster Card from your Fusion Deck. The Fusion Monster is destroyed at the end of the turn this effect is activated.

If the Fusion monster being destroyed is part of Summoner of Illusion's effect I can see the ruling, if, however, the fusion monster being destroyed is a condition I certainly cannot see the reasoning behind the ruling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, this will either help or hurt, but here goes.

From the UDE FAQ on "Summoner of Illusions":
""Skill Drain" will not affect lingering effects or conditions that are left over from a previous effect. For example, if you Special Summon a Fusion Monster with "Summoner of Illusions", and then "Skill Drain" is activated afterwards, the Fusion Monster is still destroyed in the End Phase."

So this is stating that "Summoner"s last effect is either 'lingering' or a condition.

So if "Fiend Skull Dragon" has the ability to negate the condition being placed upon 'itself' by the effect of the Flip effect monster (Summoner), then I understand the ruling.

If "Summoner"s effect is, in fact, a lingering effect, then to me, it would make sense it could be negated by "Fiend Skull Dragon".

Just trying to help.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The condition should be placed as part of the resolution of Summoner's effect. It is One-Shot and once resolved into play, should not be negatable.

Continuous negation effects such as Skill Drain or FSD from my understanding would have to be face-up and active prior to the effect resolving. Being active afterwords does not negate the effect.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The only other way that I could see this ... is that Summoner of Illusions summons the Fusion Monster. Then it applies the condition. If this particular logic is followed, then the effect of Summoner of Illusions would be negated prior to being able to "effect" the Fusion Monster with a condition since the Fusion Monster would have to be on the field prior to having the condition applied.

Great. Now I'm thinking outloud again. Wonderful.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Seeing as how Fiend Skull Dragon's effect is continuous, it is immediately active when Summoner of Illusion's effect brings him to the field. Since Summoner of Illusion has not yet fully resolved his effect until Fiend Skull Dragon is actually in place, the remaining portion of his effect is negated since its the actual "flip effect" that is being negated I think, and not the condition.

I would say that based upon the fact that Fiend Skull Dragon negates flip effects, it would seem that you couldn't even summon FSD, as it would destroy itself by its own effect by negating its own summon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hino's effect is actually a full fledged Conditional Trigger.

I guess they are figuring that the point of activation is during the Damage Step, and that would be the only time to negate it.

Once that resolves into play, you can't stop it.

It seems really odd, i really which that Konami would be alot more forthcoming with how they effects work. It doesn't seem like they have a strong grasp on Delayed/Conditional Triggers.

There should actually be 2 points of activation there, and Skill Drain should be able to negate the second one, if Hino was still face-up...oh well....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top