kingpinopie
Himoura Shinta
Ok... Royal Oppression... can it negate ANY special summon?? BLS.. Nimbles... etc?? and do you have to pay 800 each time you negate ??
Royal Oppression
- Thread starter kingpinopie
- Start date
It is basically stating that it can both "respond" to a Special Summon from Hand (like Horn and SJ), AND be chained to and effect that Special Summons (like you would chain any other effect to it).
If you read the first ruling of the RO rulings it actually explains it quite well (for once).
If you read the first ruling of the RO rulings it actually explains it quite well (for once).
What I mean to say is I've always presumed that the negation effect is only apllyng to a summoning effect and not to any other effect that has nothing to do with the summon. V Lords Recursion for example. I dont see it as a negation effect like Divine Wrath.novastar said:
Well, according to the rulings, it is both a Special Summon negator as well as an effect negator.
If you are responding, you activate it directly, it simply negates the summon like Horn/SJ.
However, if you are chaining to an activated effect, it negates the effect itself, YES the entire effect. Look at the Cyber Jar ruling, it will negate the entire effect, destruction, picking up and all.
So, what I am saying is that to negate the Special Summon of V-Lord, it should mechanically be performed in the same manner as Divine Wrath, you chain it directly to his effect.
You can't wait till it resolves, as the timing would have passed.
If you are responding, you activate it directly, it simply negates the summon like Horn/SJ.
However, if you are chaining to an activated effect, it negates the effect itself, YES the entire effect. Look at the Cyber Jar ruling, it will negate the entire effect, destruction, picking up and all.
So, what I am saying is that to negate the Special Summon of V-Lord, it should mechanically be performed in the same manner as Divine Wrath, you chain it directly to his effect.
You can't wait till it resolves, as the timing would have passed.
John Danker
Administrator
My question on this subject is if Vampire Lord is being special summoned from the graveyard by it's own effect and Royal Oppression negates it....then where is it when Royal Oppression negated it? It was in the graveyard....right? So as with Divine Wrath it can't be destroyed while it's in the graveyard, it's effect is just negated, therefore, as with Divine Wrath negating it's special summoning ability, it does not reactivate and is not special summoned the next turn.
Someone please teach me something here that says that Vampire Lord (and other such monsters that are special summoned by their own effect) leave the graveyard and float above the field waiting for their effect to resolve while Royal Oppression negates them thereby destroying them once again and sending them back to the graveyard....otherwise I'm going to have to assume that Royal Oppression should be ruled the same as Divine Wrath.
I've had an off day today and made a few silly comments .....so someone put my head on straight and tell me why it's ruled differently....please?
Someone please teach me something here that says that Vampire Lord (and other such monsters that are special summoned by their own effect) leave the graveyard and float above the field waiting for their effect to resolve while Royal Oppression negates them thereby destroying them once again and sending them back to the graveyard....otherwise I'm going to have to assume that Royal Oppression should be ruled the same as Divine Wrath.
I've had an off day today and made a few silly comments .....so someone put my head on straight and tell me why it's ruled differently....please?
DaGuyWitBluGlasses
New Member
Because Royal Oppresion is used in response to negate a specials summon of a monster by its own effect. (e.g. Garuda the Wind Spirit)
(It never says it's chained to Vampire Lord's effect., but activated in response to it)
Vampire Lord should be considered different, it should be the same as phoenix's effect... but they missed the ball on that one...
(It never says it's chained to Vampire Lord's effect., but activated in response to it)
Vampire Lord should be considered different, it should be the same as phoenix's effect... but they missed the ball on that one...
This is why I disagree with the concept of there being a responce point between the declaration of a regular summon and the actual summoning. This concept creates a problem with Special Summons due to effects as there is no declaration of the summon in those instances.John Danker said:
I belive the term "negation" was chosen because by definition negation means to "undo" or "rewind."
One dictionary defines it as:
- To make ineffective or invalid; nullify.
- To make ineffective by applying an opposite force or amount: cancel, counteract, neutralize, nullify.
daivahataka
Gold Member
I think the key point here is that the text for Royal Oppression is:
Where exactly does it say anything about destroying the card which was failed to be summoned? If the summon was negated the monster never hit the field and so couldn't be destroyed. Think about if you negate the summon of BLS-EotB, can your opponent then just reborn it or do they first have to get it back in their hand and summon it properly.
That destruction is refering to both responding and chaining. In both cases the card generating the effect is destroyed.
Not true. "Cancel", "Nullify", "make ineffective or invalid" all mean to make what is going to happen, simply not happen.
To use Magic Jammer to negate or remove a Chain Link is the proper use of negate. You "cancel" the resolution of an effect thus making it "ineffective."
Ok back to the topic... a comparison to wrap it up.
Example 1: Divine Wrath
[TP Chain Link 1] Vampire Lord/Phoenix
[OP Chain Link 2] Divine Wrath (discard a card)
resolve...
- Divine Wrath negates Chain Link 1
- The card is not destroyed because it is already in the Graveyard
Example 2: Royal Oppression
[TP Chain Link 1] Vampire Lord/Phoenix
[OP Chain Link 2] Royal Oppression (Pay 800)
resolve...
- Royal Oppression negates Chain Link 1
- The card is not destroyed because it is already in the Graveyard
The 2 situations should be identical, which is what the question is about here. For the way it looks, the only proper way to do this would be the chain RO, while V-Lord/Phonix is in the Graveyard and it therefore should not destroy V-Lord/Phoenix
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
Okay... Vampire Lord and Sacred Phoenix are very unique as we have already stated.
Divine Wrath negates the effect of a monster and destroys the "monster".
Royal Oppression negates the Special Summon of the monster (by paying a cost), this is the first part.
Royal Oppression negates the Special Summon of a monster by a cards effect (like Monster Reborn, Call of the Haunted, Cobra Jar, etc...), and destroys the card, not the monster since it was never Reborn, so Vampire Lord or Sacred Phoenix would not be returned since they were not destroyed by Royal Oppression. This is the second part.
That's what I understand.
Divine Wrath negates the effect of a monster and destroys the "monster".
Royal Oppression negates the Special Summon of the monster (by paying a cost), this is the first part.
Royal Oppression negates the Special Summon of a monster by a cards effect (like Monster Reborn, Call of the Haunted, Cobra Jar, etc...), and destroys the card, not the monster since it was never Reborn, so Vampire Lord or Sacred Phoenix would not be returned since they were not destroyed by Royal Oppression. This is the second part.
That's what I understand.
daivahataka
Gold Member
novastar said:
Crap, how asleep was I that I didn't even notice that!But if the summon is negated the card never in fact leaves the Graveyard and so cannot be destroyed. Otherwise the scenario I mentioned with BLS-EotB would allow it to be special summoned from the graveyard after it's standard summon is negated. If the card was in the Graveyard already how can it be destroyed?
Now here is the problem. "Cancel", "Nullify", "make ineffective or invalid" do not make what is going to happen, not happen. That is "prevention" and is in no way a synonym of these words. And this is the meat of the discussion.novastar said:
- I have to place an order at a resturaunt first, before I can "cancel" the order. (We're not talking about the food here, we're talking about the order itself, which has already taken place)
- You have to have a cold first, before your cold medicine "nullifies" the symptoms.
- If you've got the ball and 2 seconds left to play and you put all your effort and strenght into running it down the field or looking for an open man, and I come in and tackle you before you get two yards, then I have made all your effort "ineffective", or "invalid." It's as if it never took place and you loose the game.
- You have to play a Spell Card before I can activate Magic Jammer. If it was simply preventing it, then you couldn't play the Spell Card to begin with and I could activate Magic Jammer just to stop you from playing Spell Cards in the first place.
We've been applying the meaning of "prevention" to Royal Oppression's "negation," but we all know that we get to see what monster it is before we decide if we're going to destroy it or not. If we were preventing it, then my opponent would even get to summon it.
And this would clear up so many things about the summon negators. They wait until a monster is summoned and make it as if it never happened. It would have to work this way.
You'll notice I said "as if" The card is invalidating the summon, its making the Summon as if it never hapened, even though from the physical perspective of the players a card was place on the table, but a Summon as far as the game mechanics are concerned has not taken place.
And the ruling doesn't work that way. But if you apply the proper meaning of the word "negate" to Royal Oppression's "negate" then the ruling makes perfect sense.
Like I said, apply the proper meaning of the word "negate" and it can very easily be explained.daivahataka said:
But if the summon is negated the card never in fact leaves the Graveyard and so cannot be destroyed. Otherwise the scenario I mentioned with BLS-EotB would allow it to be special summoned from the graveyard after it's standard summon is negated. If the card was in the Graveyard already how can it be destroyed?
A "negate" can used as a "preventative" or to work against an effort put forth.
Look at the descriptions on dictionary.com
"make ineffective by counterbalancing the effect of; "Her optimism neutralizes his gloom"; "This action will negate the effect of my efforts"
That is the exact connotation they are using here, i don't see what the arguement is.
Activating an effect is the same effort as declaring an action. They both can be negated, one creates Chain Links, and the other simply does not use the chain. This is also how it works in Vs. you remove the Chain Link form the chain, in the same manner.
I do see what you are saying, but unfortunately it's a moot debate, as they have a certain way of using the "negate" mechanic in YGO. Remember, games do not have to use the dictionary meaning of a word, they can mold and shape it any way they wish.
This is a Trigger Effect, so you have 2 choices here:
- You either chain directly to it
- You wait until the effect has resolved and respond to the resolution
If you wait to let it resolve, timing is missed, because the monster would have already been successfully summoned. You cannot "respond" during the middle of an effect resolution.
Royal Oppression does 2 things, it can negate "action" and it can negate "effect resolution".
When you are negating from Hand, you are responding directly to, and negating an "action" NOT an "effect" that is why it is not chained.
When you are chaining it, you are negating effect resolution, NOT "action"
Look at the descriptions on dictionary.com
"make ineffective by counterbalancing the effect of; "Her optimism neutralizes his gloom"; "This action will negate the effect of my efforts"
That is the exact connotation they are using here, i don't see what the arguement is.
Activating an effect is the same effort as declaring an action. They both can be negated, one creates Chain Links, and the other simply does not use the chain. This is also how it works in Vs. you remove the Chain Link form the chain, in the same manner.
I do see what you are saying, but unfortunately it's a moot debate, as they have a certain way of using the "negate" mechanic in YGO. Remember, games do not have to use the dictionary meaning of a word, they can mold and shape it any way they wish.
The ruling doesn't work.
This is a Trigger Effect, so you have 2 choices here:
- You either chain directly to it
- You wait until the effect has resolved and respond to the resolution
If you wait to let it resolve, timing is missed, because the monster would have already been successfully summoned. You cannot "respond" during the middle of an effect resolution.
Royal Oppression does 2 things, it can negate "action" and it can negate "effect resolution".
When you are negating from Hand, you are responding directly to, and negating an "action" NOT an "effect" that is why it is not chained.
When you are chaining it, you are negating effect resolution, NOT "action"
daivahataka
Gold Member
Which by your explaination would allow you to reborn BLS-EotB after his summon was negated since by your logic the summon must first have taken place. This would also render Jinzo immune to Horn of Heaven and Solemn Judgement.Digital Jedi said:
Negate means to stop the event from ever having occured.
e.g.:"Negate the activation..." The card was never activated so skip resolving it.
That is not correct. I keep using the words "undo" and "rewind" and the statement "it makes the summon as if it never happened." Negation would make the summon unsuccesful because the game never considered it to have happened, so no return for BLS. It's just like activating a spell card and have the activation "undone" by Magic Jammer. The game treats the Spell Card as if it were never activated, not counting the unnegatable cost, of course.daivahataka said:
Nova, even the dictionary.com definitions you've sited have the exact same meaning I described. And I understand that games can change the meaning of words if they so choose to, but I don't see that being the case here. If you have no choice but to "respond" to the Special Summon fro the hand then why wouldn't you be able to "repond" to a Special Summon through an effect elsewhere. I think you may be too caught up in the mechanics of the chain in this instance. I don't think the chain means anything in this cards case.
John Danker
Administrator
I'm still not getting any response to my thought pattern on this question.
If Vampire Lord / Phoneix activates their effect from the graveyard and the special summon is negated by Royal Oppression....where was the monster when it's special summon was negated? It's not in the hand obviously, it's not in the RFP area, it never made it to the field....so that only leaves two places where it could be when it's special summon was negated, either floating above the field waiting to be summoned or still in the graveyard. If it's still in the graveyard then it should be ruled like Divine Wrath....and I haven't heard of a condition yet where a monster that special summons itself from the graveyard activates it's effect and floats above the field waiting for resolution.
I'm going to enjoy hearing the eventual (if ever) explination of this one. I truly will learn something new and interesting I suspect.
If Vampire Lord / Phoneix activates their effect from the graveyard and the special summon is negated by Royal Oppression....where was the monster when it's special summon was negated? It's not in the hand obviously, it's not in the RFP area, it never made it to the field....so that only leaves two places where it could be when it's special summon was negated, either floating above the field waiting to be summoned or still in the graveyard. If it's still in the graveyard then it should be ruled like Divine Wrath....and I haven't heard of a condition yet where a monster that special summons itself from the graveyard activates it's effect and floats above the field waiting for resolution.
I'm going to enjoy hearing the eventual (if ever) explination of this one. I truly will learn something new and interesting I suspect.
Not at all DJ, i'm actually just following exactly what the FAQ states about Royal Oppression.
I hear what you are saying, believe me, i don't agree, but nothing wrong with us disagreeing. I'll break it down.
When you chain RO to an effect, you are NOT responding to a Special Summon directly, you are responding to an effect activating, that includes a Special Summon event. I don't see that as being caught up in the chain mechanics, the problem lies as i said before, in the fact that V-Lord/Phoenix's effect is both activated (a Trigger) and built in, so which category does it fit into?
In my opinion, it should fit into the first group, soley because you cannot properly respond to to Special Summon directly (like you would with BLS etc.) since it is a Trigger resolving off the chain, you would miss timing.
I hear what you are saying, believe me, i don't agree, but nothing wrong with us disagreeing. I'll break it down.
So 2 ways... One using an effect that chains, the other through an effect that doesn't chain.Official FAQ said:
In this case you "chain" to the effect, that is attempting to resolve but has not happened (resolved) yet.Official FAQ said:
In this case you "respond" directly to the "action" of summoning, that is attempting to resolve, but has not happened (resolved) yet.Official FAQ said:
When you chain RO to an effect, you are NOT responding to a Special Summon directly, you are responding to an effect activating, that includes a Special Summon event. I don't see that as being caught up in the chain mechanics, the problem lies as i said before, in the fact that V-Lord/Phoenix's effect is both activated (a Trigger) and built in, so which category does it fit into?
In my opinion, it should fit into the first group, soley because you cannot properly respond to to Special Summon directly (like you would with BLS etc.) since it is a Trigger resolving off the chain, you would miss timing.
I'm close to where you are, i really have had a hard time justifying the RO ruling on V-Lord ever since i saw it. I've always thought it was wrong.John Danker said:
It's good to have these mechanical discussions. I find it very helpful for me, and it exercises my understanding and helps to teach me new things as well as correct misconceptions i might have had.
I find this forum to be the best around for good discussion as well.
John Danker
Administrator
novastar said:
I agree whole heartedly. I hope no one ever thinks that I'm arguing with them or that I don't appreciate their input or opinion. I can't tell you how much I've sorted out in my own mind since I've started keeping track of all the "hard" topics that we discuss in this rules forum.
When someone asks me what they should do to prepare for a L2 or L3 test I always tell them to study up hard on mechanics and more mechanics and read each and every message in this rules forum and understand them for about 3-4 months. If a person follows those two pieces of advice their chances of passing a L2-L3 test is pretty darn good.