HorusMaster
New Member
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.
One more thought on Macros Cosmos
- Thread starter HorusMaster
- Start date
What have I told you about watching Baywatch and surfing the web at the same time woo0? LMAOmasterwoo0 said:
His self-destuct will occur in Sub Step 5 of the Damage step, same as every other Continuous Effect monster that has a self-destruct function. So how does that make him 'wiggy'?Digital Jedi said:
My bad, I misunderstood which effect you were referring to...lol. Sorry!masterwoo0 said:
D.D. Survivor said:
Giant Kozaky said:
That's what I'm trying to say. Sorry if I'm not making it clear...Konami Ruling for "Giant Kozaky" said:
Well, since, as you say, it only "appears" to be extraneous, there could be more at work. Appearances can be deceiving and there has been no errata released for either "Giant Kozaky" or "Fox Fire", so you can just assume that one is on the way. Unless you know something the rest of us don't, this situation should either be ruled the same as "Fox Fire" and "Giant Kozaky", or it should be clarified by UDE/Konami/Judges List.Digital Jedi said:
First I've heard of it. Interestingly, this is not mentioned in Sub-Step 5 of Kevin's chart, only in Ragekick's. But to reiterate, the only two rulings I've seen that work this way are Giant Kozaky and Spirit Reaper. Are we just presuming that because these two destruction effects work this way, that all Continuous Effects with destruction work this way, or have we been officially instructed so. IF not, it seem like a huge stretch to say that destruction effects are now all this way, but not all Continuous Effects.skey23 said:
"Berserk Gorilla" works the same way. If it's attacked while in face-down Defense Position, it will ONLY self destruct after Damage Calculation (Sub Step 5) if it survives the attack. Otherwise, it gets destroyed by the attack as normal. So how is that stretching? And it's in Raigekick's chart because it's correct...lol.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
First, I see Giant Kozaky as this... The ruling says nothing about "Battle" in the first part ruling (mind you, I believe that this ruling was on the books before "Battle" was defined).
"¢ Like "Atomic Firefly", "Foxfire", and "Poison Draw Frog", if a face-down "Giant Kozaky" is attacked and destroyed, its effect is not applied. "Effect Destruction"
However, if a face-down "Giant Kozaky" is attacked, and is not destroyed by the attack, if "Kozaky" is not face-up on the field, then "Giant Kozaky" is destroyed by its own effect after damage calculation, and damage is inflicted by its effect. "Battle"
So, based upon the ruling above, Giant Kozaky was attacked by a monster such as Mystic Swordsman LV2 in the first part, which means he would NOT get his effect when sent to the Graveyard, and in the second part, Giant Kozaky is attacked by a monster that does not have an effect that destroys a face-down monster. We'll say he was attacked by Skull Servant while face-down. Skull Servant cannot destroy him by Effect or Battle, so he lives, and destroys himself by HIS effect since there is no Kozaky on the field.
"¢ Like "Atomic Firefly", "Foxfire", and "Poison Draw Frog", if a face-down "Giant Kozaky" is attacked and destroyed, its effect is not applied. "Effect Destruction"
However, if a face-down "Giant Kozaky" is attacked, and is not destroyed by the attack, if "Kozaky" is not face-up on the field, then "Giant Kozaky" is destroyed by its own effect after damage calculation, and damage is inflicted by its effect. "Battle"
So, based upon the ruling above, Giant Kozaky was attacked by a monster such as Mystic Swordsman LV2 in the first part, which means he would NOT get his effect when sent to the Graveyard, and in the second part, Giant Kozaky is attacked by a monster that does not have an effect that destroys a face-down monster. We'll say he was attacked by Skull Servant while face-down. Skull Servant cannot destroy him by Effect or Battle, so he lives, and destroys himself by HIS effect since there is no Kozaky on the field.
And that is where I was afraid you'd go with it. It would be incorrect to rule it that way, when you don't have explicit reason to do so. The basic mechanics of the game say it is not this way, and they ALWAYS take precedence over the interpretation of an unrelated ruling. Your wondering if it is the way you think it is. But you would be jumping the gun to rule it that way without verification first. Apperances can be decieiving, which is why you don't just shoot the guy in the turban because you think he's a terrorist, and twelve white guys in suits walk by carrying bazookas. Preconcived notions can be more harmeful then anything else.Kyhotae said:
What I'm asking is, where has this been officially stated? That seems like an awfully large presumption if were just going of those rulings alone. You don't find a few instances of a Continuous Effect waiting for Damage Calculation to become applicable, wiggy?skey23 said:
The problem is that "Atomic Firefly", "Fox Fire", and "Poison Draw Frog" do not have continuous effects. They have trigger effects based on being destroyed while face-up. Since they said "Like 'Atomic Firefly', 'Foxfire', and 'Poison Draw Frog'..." they must be talking about the Trigger Effect of "Giant Kozaky" and not his Continuous Effect.masterwoo0 said:
Right. No one is arguing this...
Right. This was addressed by the ruling. However, also based on the ruling, if it WAS destroyed in battle by say "Summoned Skull", then its trigger effect would not be applied.
So, if I should get verification, then why would you fault me for saying we need it? We have no verification, but we have several cards that are ruled one way in extremely similar situations. You could just as easily be the one letting the white guys with bazookas by. That's why this needs to be addressed.Digital Jedi said:
I've been told that you should use rulings for similar cards to extrapolate if you don't have official word from Konami.
Um..hello? The rulings themselves point this out for all 3 monsters.Digital Jedi said:
And you've got something else for us to go by OTHER than the official rulings for the cards?Digital Jedi said:
No, I don't find anything 'wiggy' about having the same ruilng applied for 3 different cards that have a Continuous Effect that involves self-destruction during the Damage Step. I call that consistency.Digital Jedi said:
Dillie-O
Council of Heroes
I don't see it as wiggy because, in effect, the classification of Giant Kozaky as "destroyed' due to damage calculation effectively terminates his continuous effect from being applied.
With our MSLV2 example, the automatic destruction causes the damage step to bypass all of its substeps.
However, with the continuous effect, it ceases to "work" as soon as the monster is destroyed. Consider this. Let's say as long as I'm in your presence, you have to give me 50 bucks. Well if you come up from behind and kill me, are you still going to give me 50 bucks because I'm in your presence? No? That ability simply doesn't apply anymore.
I see the same with Giant Kozaky. Hopefully that analogy doesn't seem too extreme and makes sense.
With our MSLV2 example, the automatic destruction causes the damage step to bypass all of its substeps.
However, with the continuous effect, it ceases to "work" as soon as the monster is destroyed. Consider this. Let's say as long as I'm in your presence, you have to give me 50 bucks. Well if you come up from behind and kill me, are you still going to give me 50 bucks because I'm in your presence? No? That ability simply doesn't apply anymore.
I see the same with Giant Kozaky. Hopefully that analogy doesn't seem too extreme and makes sense.
What I 'think' DJ is having an issue with is the fact that a Continuous Effect is having to wait until AFTER Damage Calculation in the 1st place. If "Jinzo" is flipped face-up by an attack, his Continuous Effect doesn't have to wait. It's immediately applied.Dillie-O said:
So why is it that "Spirit Reaper", "Berserk Gorilla" and "Giant Kozaky"s Contiunous Effects have to wait?
At least that's how I 'interpreted' what he's saying...lol.
I took your previous comment to mean that you were going to rule it that way regardless, rather then wait for verification. Apparently I misread. I wasn't faulting you for saying we need it. But I do think you'll be waiting a long time, and I believe it would be unwise to extrapolate it this way until you receive it. I can't stress enough that these particular rulings don't really fit the mechanics and as such, not be genuine places to extrapolate from. We do have official word from Konami. The game rules fit the text. We just don't have the variation that your searching for.Kyhotae said:
That would be correct. I'm certainly no stranger to the BKSS, but where do we have documentation that says these three BKSS are true for all Continuous Effects that involve destruction?skey23 said:
Well, based on the rulings and the discussion here, I would probably rule that way if faced with it in a similar situation (of course, I would defer to the Head Judge if there was an appeal by the player), but I still think we need to hear from the Rulings Guys.
I also don't agree that the game rules fit the text in the way you're talking about. If the rules of the game say that monsters that need to be face-up when destroyed to trigger, then why would they have clarified with "Fox Fire", et al. They didn't say that they were deviating from the rules of the game with those rulings...
I also don't agree that the game rules fit the text in the way you're talking about. If the rules of the game say that monsters that need to be face-up when destroyed to trigger, then why would they have clarified with "Fox Fire", et al. They didn't say that they were deviating from the rules of the game with those rulings...
It's not all Continuous Effects that involve destruction. It's all Continuous Monster Effects that involve self-destruction. And that destruction just happens to occur during the Damage Step.Digital Jedi said:
And considering I can only find 3 monsters that this would apply to, AND all 3 have the same ruling applied to them. I'd say that's a pretty solid thing to go on.....wouldn't you?
Do you remember how Ultimate Offering used to read? For years it did not state when it's effect could be activated, when it could not be activated and who could use the effect (it implied any player could, like Royal Oppression). e didn't even have rulings on it. Just one Judges List message saying that it worked the way it did. Only late last year did we finally receive an errata, but until we received that errata we were still suppoosed to rule the card based on that message, and not on it's Effect Text. As bizarre as that is, it's a common occurrence in this game. Fox Fire wasn't a clarification, but more likely, a mistranslation. When Atomic Firefly and Poison Draw Frog (cards that came out before and after Fox Fire respectively) both clearly have there attack conditions printed in their text, and Fox Fire does not, then how could that not be anything more then a misprint?Kyhotae said:
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
When you read Fox Fire's text, maybe no one else see's it the way I do, but it looks to me that it already must be face-up, and the Ruling only clarifies it.Kyhotae said:
That's like looking at a Red Car in a New Car Lot, and reading the Description on the Invoice. If it goes on to clarify that the color is really "Crimson Red", then you have more of a understanding of the actual color, than you did by just looking at it.
DaGuyWitBluGlasses
New Member
Digital Jedi said:
Berserk Gorrila works that way because Konami Said so; Spirit Reaper works that way because Konami said so; Giant Kozaky works that way because konami said so.
Or
Konami says that if a monster is to destroy itself by a continuous effect then it waits until after damage calculation.
Never use more entitities to explain something than necessary. 3 < 6.
EDIT: And DJ, we DID have an official ruling on the UDE faq for Ultimate Offering.