One more thought on Macros Cosmos

[HorusMaster]

Just wanted to know- do you only remove monsters from play that would normally go to the graveyard or is EVERY card removed from play? Curious about how it plays out given the card text does not specify only monsters.

 

[Entropy]

First, I'm guessing that masterwoo0 is angry because of the whole "P.S." part. I apologize. I literally was about to post when I noticed it. It was an afterthought in my mind, so I posted it as an afterthough. I didn't mean for it to sound condescending. My bad.

Particularly does Giant Kozaky's ruling not make sense according to the game rules, because Continuous Effects become active immediately when flipped. There's no mechanical reason he shouldn't have his effect apply when he's flipped in the Damage Step like a Spirit Reaper's would.

Berserk Gorilla and Thunder Nyan-Nyan don't have their Continuous Effects activate in Damage Calculation. Giant Kozaky's effect is just like their effects: "If xxx then destroy this card."

Comparing these effects to anything is unfair and is going to lead you down an erroneous path. They contradict the pre-existing game rules. The reason we came up with the phrase BKSS, is because there are many effects that do not fit the existing templating of game mechanics. When they don't fit, it's unwise to try to force them to do so, which is what I believe I'm seeing here.

Why don't they fit? The only ruling that we that says they don't is the Sandmoth ruling. Maybe Sandmoth is the exception. After all,:

"¢ If "Drillroid" attacks a face-down "Giant Kozaky" while "Kozaky" is not on the field, "Giant Kozaky" is destroyed by the effect of "Drillroid" after being flipped face-up. The effect of "Giant Kozaky" is not applied and it does not inflict damage.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Berserk Gorilla and Thunder Nyan-Nyan don't have their Continuous Effects activate in Damage Calculation. Giant Kozaky's effect is just like their effects: "If xxx then destroy this card."

I presume you meant the Damage Step. I also presume your extrapolating Thunder Nyan Nyan from Berserk Gorilla's and Spirit Reaper's rulings, as there is nothing published that says she will be destroyed after Damage Calculation by her effect. Even so, these rulings don't jibe with what we've been told Continuous Effects generally do when flipped face-up during the Damage Step. Jinzo would not start negating traps after Damage Calculation. Spirit Reaper would not be destroyed by battle because he had to wait for Damage Calculation to apply. Tenkabito Shien could not be affected by traps because he had to wait until after Damage Calculation to be unaffected. The End of Anubis will not wait to start negating effects that target and activate in the Graveyard. Command Knight will not wait to start boosting herself and all other Warriors. Same for Star Boy, Little Chimera, & Bladefly. Gren Maju Da Eiza will not wait until after Damage Calculation to determin what his ATK will be.

I could go on, but my point is that there is an established mechanical function for Continuous Effects, that the rulings for the ones you all are pointing out all contradict. I suppose one could go so far as to say that they are different because they all involve destruction of some kind, but that's mere speculation, and we don't have any evidence to back that up. Why base the function of another card on the ruling of a card(s) that contradicts the established more widely accepted game rules?

Why don't they fit? The only ruling that we that says they don't is the Sandmoth ruling. Maybe Sandmoth is the exception. After all,:

"¢ If "Drillroid" attacks a face-down "Giant Kozaky" while "Kozaky" is not on the field, "Giant Kozaky" is destroyed by the effect of "Drillroid" after being flipped face-up. The effect of "Giant Kozaky" is not applied and it does not inflict damage.

When Sand Moth make so much sense mechanically, why would it be an exception? Aside from that, Giant Kozaky is a Continuous Effect, and can't really be compared to the chainable effect of D.D. Survivor. This is part of the reason I believe your reasoning down a shaky path. I would be unfair to rule D.D Survivor based on the rulings of Fox Fire or Giant Kozaky, when there is already established rules that say face-up is face-up.

 

[Kyhotae]

The point I was trying to make, however, was that it doesn't matter. Mechanically, based on the text, Fox Fire shouldn't work this way. This is the way they want him to work, obviously, but they should have phrased his text more like Atomic Firefly or Poison Draw Frog, then it would have made perfect sense. But as it stands, Fox Fire is not an appropriate card to use as a templating example, because it's text is not phrased to match its rulings. This would be like trying to use the text on the old Ultimate Offering card before the errata as a basis for how other effects would work. You can't use erroneously phrased text as a basis for templating.

However, we have rulings that address the situations involved with all those cards. We don't have one with "D.D. Survivor" and being destroyed in battle while in face-down defense. My point is that the cards that are similar are ruled differently depending on the card, so in order to really know how the situation works, we'd have to ask UDE/Konami.

How is it a different situation, exactly?

It's different because it isn't destroyed by battle after damage calculation. It's destroyed by effect before damage calculation, so you can't really compare the two situations. Different timing, different reasons for destruction.

 

[masterwoo0]

However, we have rulings that address the situations involved with all those cards. We don't have one with "D.D. Survivor" and being destroyed in battle while in face-down defense. My point is that the cards that are similar are ruled differently depending on the card, so in order to really know how the situation works, we'd have to ask UDE/Konami.


It's different because it isn't destroyed by battle after damage calculation. It's destroyed by effect before damage calculation, so you can't really compare the two situations. Different timing, different reasons for destruction.

That's because monsters are NEVER destroyed in Battle while face-down. Monsters are only destroyed by "effect" if they are destroyed face-down, and that is also why we have a definition of "Battle", to explain why.

Monsters will always be flipped face-up to Calculate Damage when Battle is involved, which is why Drillroid is the exception to all this.

 

[Kyhotae]

I know, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether a card gets its effect if destroyed in battle when it was in face-down defense position when they are required to be face-up on the field for their effect to activate when destroyed/removed from play. Some of them do, some of them don't, hence the confusion.

 

[Digital Jedi]

However, we have rulings that address the situations involved with all those cards. We don't have one with "D.D. Survivor" and being destroyed in battle while in face-down defense. My point is that the cards that are similar are ruled differently depending on the card, so in order to really know how the situation works, we'd have to ask UDE/Konami.

That is precisely my point. The only reason we needed rulings for those cards to begin with, is because the way Konami wanted them to work is contrary to their text+rulings. Basically, why look for trouble when there isn't any, know what I mean? Why presume that because Konami had a few exceptions, the every instance of similar text needs verification. We do that and we have to question every card effect that ever read similar to an exception, meaning a ton of cards in the game that already have game rules to base their effects off of. Is it really wise to point to every instance where a ruling that contradicts game rules an say it's possibly a new rule?

It's different because it isn't destroyed by battle after damage calculation. It's destroyed by effect before damage calculation, so you can't really compare the two situations. Different timing, different reasons for destruction.

I think the point was to show that when a card is attacked, it is considered face-up prior to Damage Calculation. Hence the reason Sand Moth's effect will not activate. You see why the other rulings contradict establish game rules? Because a card is flipped face-up prior to Damage Calculation. it makes no sense for Continuous Effects to wait to apply afterwards, but if Konami wants a handful to do so, that's on them. It still doesn't change the fact that face-up is face-up, and that D.D. Survivor is face-up when he's removed from play if flipped by an attack with Macro Cosmos, Banisher of the Light or Banisher of the Radiance in play. His effect doesn't activate then in any case, it's simply a condition that the game looks for when he was removed from play

 

[skey23]

**sigh**For what it's worth, I agree that "D.D. Survivor"s effect would not be activated. I'm basing my answer soley upon the "Giant Kozaky" ruling since it's text is pretty much identical (except for the removed from play part...lol).

 

[masterwoo0]

**sigh**For what it's worth, I agree that "D.D. Survivor"s effect would not be activated. I'm basing my answer soley upon the "Giant Kozaky" ruling since it's text is pretty much identical (except for the removed from play part...lol).

Giant Kozaky's effect actually activates on the field. D.D. Survivor doesn't.

So you are right in that respect, skey23... D.D. Survivor will not activate anything from the field.

 

[Digital Jedi]

I know, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether a card gets its effect if destroyed in battle when it was in face-down defense position when they are required to be face-up on the field for their effect to activate when destroyed/removed from play. Some of them do, some of them don't, hence the confusion.

I realize I mentioned this already in my last post, but some of them do because that's how the game works. And some of them don't because they've been labeled as an exception to the rule. And then there are some who simply have text that very clearly points out why. None of these are reasons to say that the D.D. Survivor MIGHT be ruled that way, when game rules say he isn't and there is no ruling saying he does.

 

[Kyhotae]

That is precisely my point. The only reason we needed rulings for those cards to begin with, is because the way Konami wanted them to work is contrary to their text+rulings. Basically, why look for trouble when there isn't any, know what I mean?

OK. I understand your point. My problem is that there's obviously a reason to seek clarification. I don't know which answer is correct because similar cards have two different answers. Since there's confusion, someone should ask for clarification.

Why presume that because Konami had a few exceptions, the every instance of similar text needs verification. We do that and we have to question every card effect that ever read similar to an exception, meaning a ton of cards in the game that already have game rules to base their effects off of. Is it really wise to point to every instance where a ruling that contradicts game rules an say it's possibly a new rule?

Maybe not, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm only playing devil's advocate. I would really like it if "D.D. Survivor" came back after being destroyed in battle after being flipped by the attack. It would really help my "Helios Duo Megistus" Deck that I have created. Unfortunately, I can't say for certain that it would be ruled this way based on the established rulings for similar cards and I'm just wondering why you and woo0 seem so comfortable doing so...

 

[skey23]

Giant Kozaky's effect actually activates on the field. D.D. Survivor doesn't.

You wanna re-read the rulings for "Giant Kozaky". It's effect activates in the Graveyard or the RFP area depending on where it ends up.

So you are right in that respect, skey23... D.D. Survivor will not activate anything from the field.

How can I be right about something I never said? Does that make me more godly than I am? Sweet!

 

[Digital Jedi]

**sigh**For what it's worth, I agree that "D.D. Survivor"s effect would not be activated. I'm basing my answer soley upon the "Giant Kozaky" ruling since it's text is pretty much identical (except for the removed from play part...lol).

Does that mean Dark Magician of Chaos' effect would not activate if flipped and destroyed by an attack? What about a Serpentine Princess with Grave Protector in play?

 

[Digital Jedi]

OK. I understand your point. My problem is that there's obviously a reason to seek clarification. I don't know which answer is correct because similar cards have two different answers. Since there's confusion, someone should ask for clarification.


Maybe not, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm only playing devil's advocate. I would really like it if "D.D. Survivor" came back after being destroyed in battle after being flipped by the attack. It would really help my "Helios Duo Megistus" Deck that I have created. Unfortunately, I can't say for certain that it would be ruled this way based on the established rulings for similar cards and I'm just wondering why you and woo0 seem so comfortable doing so...

I'm comfortable doing so because with Konami, there are two basic tenets you go by. The rules and then what Konami says is different from the rules. That second one never redefines the first, unless they officially change the first to match the second. The seconds will always have verification some where, before it's even brought into question. The first cannot be presumed to be like the second, because there's too much room for flexibility. If Konami can make exceptions, then would I ask if every card, that doesn't have a spelled-out ruling, is an exception to the rule? I know that Star Boy boosts every Water-Type on both sides of the field by 500. But Command Knight used to read the same way. Am I to presume that because there isn't an official ruling saying that Star Boy works juts like the errated Command Knight, that it "might" work the same way, and only do my side of the field? Or would common sense tell me that it does both. It's certainly okay to question rulings, especially in this game, to varying degrees. But at some point, you can end up crossing a line that makes every ruling that is rather clear cut, foggier then it needs to be.

 

[Kyhotae]

There's a difference between errata and rulings. The wording of these cards have not been changed, but the rulings have clarified that some (most) don't get their effects if destroyed while attacked in face-down defense postion. WHile it may not be a new "rule", it certainly seems to be a trend.

Also, there's no ruling to address either of the situations you described, but if you go by "Giant Kozaky", the wording is exactly the same for "Dark Magician of Chaos" and "Serpentine Princess", so it could be ruled as a "no." See? I don't want to know if there's a new rule, I just want to know how these situations would be ruled because of the confusion.

 

[masterwoo0]

You wanna re-read the rulings for "Giant Kozaky". It's effect activates in the Graveyard or the RFP area depending on where it ends up.

How can I be right about something I never said? Does that make me more godly than I am? Sweet!

I could have sworn that Giant Kozaky destroys himself if there is no Kozaky on the field....

Oh well, learn something new everyday.

 

[Kyhotae]

Wrong effect. The similar effect is the second one. The one that does the damage. It activates after it's destroyed. Look for the "If this face-up card..." That's what's causing the confusion.

 

[masterwoo0]

Wrong effect. The similar effect is the second one. The one that does the damage. It activates after it's destroyed. Look for the "If this face-up card..." That's what's causing the confusion.

I'm talking about the one that destroys himself. Im not talking about the damage.

I know his effect is Continuous. That's why I said that Giant Kozaky's effect takes place on the field, where he destroys himself, and D.D. Survivor's effect takes place when he is removed from play.

I'm just wondering why you and woo0 seem so comfortable doing so...

Also, I'm "comfortable" with ruling it that way because the game isnt going to wait for an answer from the Judge List when this happens. There is only 40 minutes in a Match, not a lifetime...

Plus, Fox-fire is not identical to D.D. Survivor. Survivor's text doesnt say "when this face-up card is destroyed in Battle", which clearly states that it must have already been face-up when it was attacked, just like everyone reads into the fact that D.D. Survivor must ALREADY be face-up when it gets destroyed.

If the assumption is okay for one, then why not the other??

 

[Kyhotae]

That one is not the similar effect that's the source of the confusion. The effect that's similar to "D.D. Survivor" is the second one.

If this face-up card is...

... If this face-up card is...

The second effect is the one that "Giant Kozaky" doesn't get if it's destroyed in battle, even if, as you say, it is flipped face-up by an attack and then destroyed by that attack. If it works the way you say "D.D. Survivor" works, then the damage should be dealt, but it's not.

 

[Digital Jedi]

There's a difference between errata and rulings. The wording of these cards have not been changed, but the rulings have clarified that some (most) don't get their effects if destroyed while attacked in face-down defense postion. WHile it may not be a new "rule", it certainly seems to be a trend.

Also, there's no ruling to address either of the situations you described, but if you go by "Giant Kozaky", the wording is exactly the same for "Dark Magician of Chaos" and "Serpentine Princess", so it could be ruled as a "no." See? I don't want to know if there's a new rule, I just want to know how these situations would be ruled because of the confusion.

But is there truly any confusion, or simply misinterpretation? What I've been trying to point out, is that you may be looking for rulings in all the wrong places. So far the only ruling that doesn't jibe is Giant Kozaky's and Fox Fire's. They seem to want these cards to be face-up when attacked, and do not say so in their effect text. Atomic Firefly and Poison Draw Frog really can't be sited as examples, when their effect text clearly points out where their supposed to be when attacked. So all that is really the basis for "confusion" is the ruling on Giant Kozaky and Fox Fire. But as I've pointed out before, Giant Kozaky doesn't work like the majority of Continuous Effects. There's no reason he should be destroyed by battle in the first place if Kozaky is not on the field when flipped. So being that his effect is wiggy to begin with, he can't really be the templating for anything else. Fox Fire makes a statement that appears extraneous. Like when Mirror Wall says "when your opponent attacks with a monster..", well what else can you attack with. Only a face-up card can be destroyed by battle in the first place, so the additional text and the accompanying ruling appear to mean that it was phrased incorrectly. Again, not a very good reason to look to it as a possible basis for other rulings. Both are on very shaky ground, and would require a complete rules revision to be consistent across the board. I know you just want to be sure, but this seems fairly obvious, to me at least. Which is why I feel this is more a case of misinterpretation then the much broader ramifications of confusion.

 

[masterwoo0]

If it works the way you say "D.D. Survivor" works, then the damage should be dealt, but it's not.

Maybe its the fact that I am watching TV, but I have no idea what you are trying to say here....