Reloading Opponent's Card

F

Fiendish Envoy

Member
Whats the ruling with this again?

I know the card goes to the opponent's deck, but would you still get to draw an extra card, or would that card not count? Since Reload says cards returned to your deck, I'm assuming no, but I need to make sure.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
"Reload": " Add your hand to your Deck and shuffle it. Then draw the same number of cards that you added to your Deck."

From the text on the card, I would say you would draw the same number of cards you added to YOUR deck.

So in this case, you would not count the card that went to your opponent's deck.

Just my take on the way the card is worded.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
what about:
Card Destruction:
Both players must discard their entire hands and draw the same number of cards that they discarded from their respective Decks.

player A has player B's "card destruction" (due to exchange) as his only card
player B has one of player A's cards (also just that card)
player A activates "card destruction" , he discards 0 cards, player B discards 1 card (player A's card)

who draws a card?

my guess is player A (his card was discarded from opponents hand)

UDE FAQ says:

The opponent is still considered the owner of the card you take by the effect of "Exchange" for all purposes.

:confused:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You still can activate it, even if it's your only card and your opponent has none, because it is looking at hand size while in your hand for legality, and it sees itself (doesn't know it is looking at itself), and is legally activatible.

-chaosruler
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Only one player needs a card for Card Destruction to be activated. It will resolve properly even if for only one palyer.

Card Destruction never counts as the one card, as it can not be discarded by its own effect.

Since player B discarded the card, player B would get to draw for it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I didn't mean for actual count for drawing, just for reasons of one player having at least one card in hand, meh, I thought I was clear about that..., oh well ^_^

-chaosruler
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chaosruler said:
I didn't mean for actual count for drawing, just for reasons of one player having at least one card in hand, meh, I thought I was clear about that..., oh well ^_^

-chaosruler
Click to expand...

yes you were clear, but:
It does not check if it can be activated or not while it is in the hand. It will never consider itself to be a card in order for it to be properly activated. If card destruction is the only card in either players hand it can not be properly activated.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Morphing Jar#2 picks up the same number of monster thw were returned to the owners deck, regardless of what side of the field they originated from.

Player A only picks up one monster (and summons it if its Lv 4 or lower and can be normal summoned.)

Player B would pick up (at least) one monster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Are you sure about this? At the recent Regionals here it was ruled differently because the card text states "until you both have the same number of Monster Cards that were returned to each Deck." It does not mention 'owner' anywhere in the card text. (it does say respective)

The example given by chaos general actually happened to me at this last Regionals. The Judge ruled that I was able to special summon 2 monsters and my opponent was not able to summon any since his "Morphing Jar #2" was destroyed as a result of the battle and I was the player who sent 2 monsters to a deck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes i'm sure. It's the monster that are returned to the deck that are counted. It doesn't concern itself with the sides of the field. The player controlling an opponent's monster does not return it to the deck, it's Morphing Jar #2 's effect that does that.

Owner's card, owner's deck.

"EACH" Denotes separatism. when it says each, it means that each deck affected separately. Therefore the EACH should confirm that it goes by the monster end destination of the deck. Not where they came from.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
well, my question is how are you supposed to put your opponent's monster in your deck? It isn't part of MJ#2's text/effect, so what did he base his ruling off of? No offense to the judge, I just fail to see the logic.

-chaosruler
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The logic, as I understand it, was this:

I had 2 monsters on the field, my opponent had 1. I attacked his face-down "Morphing Jar #2". Since "#2" was no longer a 'valid' monster to return to a deck, the total monsters returning to 'each' deck was 2, BOTH from my side of the field. To quote DaGuy: "It's the monster(s) that are returned to the deck that are counted." And this is the EXACT logic used to rule the way the judge ruled. There were a total of 2 monsters returned to the deck. But here is where the ruling differed from what DaGuy says: "It doesn't concern itself with the sides of the field." The judge ruled that because BOTH monsters came from MY side of the field that I got to Special Summon 2 monsters, even though 1 of those monsters was my opponent's and went to HIS deck.

Why do I know this?...Because my opponent argued his case and wanted the judge to 'back up' his ruling. He believed the card played as DaGuy and chaosruler state.

I am not trying to be confrontational. I am simply stating the ruling given to me last weekend.

I am simply trying to find the 'correct' answer for myself should I ever have to give a ruling in a similar situation.

Thanks.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top