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
skey23 said:
I'm not quite sure this works because "Call" is 'linked' to the monster it 'reborns', if you will. "Summoner" does not 'link'. "Summoner" does not NEED to stay on the field to have it's destruction effect applied. The "Jinzo" scenario works the way it does because of the 'link' needed between "Call" and the monster it brings back. Plus, with the "Call"/"Jinzo" scenario, "Jinzo"s effect to negate "Call" happens AFTER "Call" has resolved. There is no question there. And everybody seems to agree that "Call" does resolve before "Jinzo" 'breaks the link', so to speak.

Like I stated above, there are two issues that NEED to be 'officially' answered before the 'true' ruling can be determined.
Click to expand...

True. Just stating my opinion. :D
Never claimed it to be the right answer LOL
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bishop said:
But if you remove from play a monster affected by Limiter Removal, it is not subject to the conditions placed on it and destroyed at the end of the turn.

Or did that change too?
Click to expand...

No that is still the case... same as if you IMTed a Fusion summoned by "Summoner of Illusions". "Change of Heart", "Enemy Controller", and "Mind Controller" are in their own ruling class that is the exception to the other "rulings".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lets understand, Call of the Haunted is a continuous card.

The only non-continuous effect to resolve from it is the Special Summon. Once copmpleted Jinzo will make it inactive.

This is very different than Jinzo/Rope or Summoner/FSD. Where there are multiple events (effects) that resolve into play during the chain link.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Fair enough. I'll give you that one.

Arg. I'll sit and watch this now. It would seem I've opened up at least an interesting -- if not entertaining -- question here. I'd like to see how we resolve this.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bishop said:
Fair enough. I'll give you that one.

Arg. I'll sit and watch this now. It would seem I've opened up at least an interesting -- if not entertaining -- question here. I'd like to see how we resolve this.
Click to expand...

We usually toss it around, throw in a couple of precidents, contrast and compare, disagree, form into opposing opinion teams (most often civil and well meaning which is why I enjoy and appreciate this forum as opposed to many others) and then after we've exhausted the possibilites I agree to post it on the judge list. About 50%-65% of the time we get an answer, the other 50%-35% we just start a new round of debates or all become so exhausted of the question we table it until someone new sees the thread and then most of us just sigh....until a new card comes out that introduces a sim. effect and sets a new precident....or until the powers that be decide it's worthy of an answer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
We usually toss it around, throw in a couple of precidents, contrast and compare, disagree, form into opposing opinion teams (most often civil and well meaning which is why I enjoy and appreciate this forum as opposed to many others) and then after we've exhausted the possibilites I agree to post it on the judge list. About 50%-65% of the time we get an answer, the other 50%-35% we just start a new round of debates or all become so exhausted of the question we table it until someone new sees the thread and then most of us just sigh....until a new card comes out that introduces a sim. effect and sets a new precident....or until the powers that be decide it's worthy of an answer.
Click to expand...
<sighs />

<puts away all the American Gladiator Jousting sticks />

<sighs />

...and I thought we were going to resolve this the old fashioned way. 8^D

I'd love to find out though. I learned so much in one thread!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My two cents on this is that not everything after FLIP: on Summoner of Illusions text is part of the effect. Summoning the Fusion monster is the effect, destroying it is the condition. The ruling for Skill Drain specifically says that it doesn't negate conditions, so I'd say that Fiend Skull Dragon would follow the same rule. The condition is probably tagged onto the summoned monster before it hits the field, otherwise if i chained Ring of Destruction to Magical Scientist's effect (targetting Scientist), then the summoned monster would stay out indefinitely, since Scientist was in the Graveyard when the Fusion Monster was special summoned.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bishop said:
Getting anything out of "them" is the trick. What I see answered on the Judge's List is -- generally, not all the time. no blanket statments implied here -- rulings that a six year old could answer with a bit of common sense and logic applied to the situation. I don't really see anything that is earthshattering coming off that List.
Click to expand...

Haha...To be fair, bishop, many of the questions asked on the Judge List are essentially of that type (though, I'm trying to answer as many questions off-list as possible when answering it on the list would be pointless -- which is one of many reasons why Curtis, Kevin, and even Dan have posted to the list more often than I have lately). Either that, or they're the type of question that can't be answered because Konami hasn't given us an answer (and as we all know, there's still a very large list of questions/situations/scenarios/etc. that have yet to be answered).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
<druming fingers> Steve? You managed to be a politician here <nudging him in the ribs> You gave an answer to the talk without giving an answer to the question......you aren't by chance running for office there in Alaska are you?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shhh, quiet John...You're ruining it for me. :D

In all seriousness, though, the reason I didn't give an answer is because I personally don't currently know how this particular situation is ruled. We definitely noticed that the situation was asked on the Judge List several times in the past -- it's just very possible that we still have no clear answer yet. And while I could chime in on this with my opinion, that's just what I'd be giving you: my opinion. As such, I've respectfully opted instead to be quiet about it until I can get a concrete answer. I hope no one minds.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kenjiblade said:
Shhh, quiet John...You're ruining it for me. :D

In all seriousness, though, the reason I didn't give an answer is because I personally don't currently know how this particular situation is ruled. We definitely noticed that the situation was asked on the Judge List several times in the past -- it's just very possible that we still have no clear answer yet. And while I could chime in on this with my opinion, that's just what I'd be giving you: my opinion. As such, I've respectfully opted instead to be quiet about it until I can get a concrete answer. I hope no one minds.
Click to expand...

No! I don't mind at all. In fact, I applaud you for saying straight out..."I don't know" I'd always rather have someone be straight up and tell me they don't know or tell me that they're speculating rather than blow sunshine up my kester (I can say that here can't I?) <waiting for some other moderator to edit my post> As a matter of fact I'd like to hear that a little more often than not get any response at all. Thank you for your honesty.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Certainly no one minds. :D

And, my statement is more about the redundancy issues again. I know that I'm still seeing issues that have been answered more than once on the list and archived in the past (and still have the same answer). It's all about quality control, in my book at least. I wouldn't want your job.

Wait. I once had that job. :( I wouldn't want it back. LOL!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Alright guys, so I checked with Kevin on this, and Konami hasn't told us anything different about it. The ruling is still the following:

When you Special Summon "Fiend Skull Dragon" with the effect of "Summoner of Illusions", "Fiend Skull Dragon" negates the Flip Effect of "Summoner of Illusions" and "Fiend Skull Dragon" remains on the field and is not destroyed at the end of the turn.
Click to expand...

This may not solve the issue of "condition" vs. "effect" for "Summoner of Illusions", but at least now we know for certain how to currently rule this.

However, Kevin says this is an old ruling, so it's dangerous to make assumptions about other cards based on it. He says it's on the list of questions he's waiting for Konami to answer (but that's a pretty long list)."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You ROCK! Kenjiblade! Thanks for taking the time to check up on this again.

Now quick! Can you edit the post saying its up in the air and that Konami recommended using American Gladiator jousting sticks to figure out who is right? Imagine _THAT_ resolution 8^D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top