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
Is that the Judge List post? Remember that the Judge List also states that Fusion Gate is an ignition-like effect. On the other hand, the official site states that Royal Oppression can negate Vampire Lord's Special Summon and destroy it (note that it doesn't say it can negate the EFFECT, but the actual Special Summon).novastar said:
I read this thread and it was quite interesting 
What I figured out is that there are 2 kinds of Special Summon - outside and "inside".
1. Outside is when an effect Special Summons a monster.
e.g. Monster Reborn, Call, Nimble Momonga, etc.
These can NOT be negated by Horn.
If VLord's effect Special Summons a monster then it is an outside effect, specially a trigger effect and you can use RO against it in a chain, but not negate the summon itself. You can use Divine Wrath also against such a monster effect. In this case VLord wont be trying to revive next turn. (That it is reviving ITSELF is meaningless here.)
2. "Inside" is when MegaCyber, Cyber Dragon, BLS, etc. can be/must be special summoned by their effects. I dont know - these are maybe continous effects.
There is no real effect here but an action of special summoning. These summons can be negated with Horn, but no effect negation here, so Divine Wrath doesnt work. They are all made from hand.
Phoenix is surely group 1. beacuse of the Divine Wrath ruling.
But if KONAMI said (according to Raijinili) that VLord's effect should be considered like group 2. - continous - then it is not a trigger effect and Divine Wrath can not be chained to it. But it is special summoned the same way as Megacyber except that this action happens from the graveyard and not from hand. In this case the summoning can be negated with Horn (and Vlord will try to revive one turn later again).
If you consider this then they (phoenix and vlord) dont have to be in the same group. It would be nice and simple but this game is not made for people who like simple things
So VLord is/can be the only monster who is summoned from the grave instead of the hand - cool.
What I figured out is that there are 2 kinds of Special Summon - outside and "inside".
1. Outside is when an effect Special Summons a monster.
e.g. Monster Reborn, Call, Nimble Momonga, etc.
These can NOT be negated by Horn.
If VLord's effect Special Summons a monster then it is an outside effect, specially a trigger effect and you can use RO against it in a chain, but not negate the summon itself. You can use Divine Wrath also against such a monster effect. In this case VLord wont be trying to revive next turn. (That it is reviving ITSELF is meaningless here.)
2. "Inside" is when MegaCyber, Cyber Dragon, BLS, etc. can be/must be special summoned by their effects. I dont know - these are maybe continous effects.
There is no real effect here but an action of special summoning. These summons can be negated with Horn, but no effect negation here, so Divine Wrath doesnt work. They are all made from hand.
Phoenix is surely group 1. beacuse of the Divine Wrath ruling.
But if KONAMI said (according to Raijinili) that VLord's effect should be considered like group 2. - continous - then it is not a trigger effect and Divine Wrath can not be chained to it. But it is special summoned the same way as Megacyber except that this action happens from the graveyard and not from hand. In this case the summoning can be negated with Horn (and Vlord will try to revive one turn later again).
If you consider this then they (phoenix and vlord) dont have to be in the same group. It would be nice and simple but this game is not made for people who like simple things
So VLord is/can be the only monster who is summoned from the grave instead of the hand - cool.
Problem with what?
I described exactly what you wrote. RO can negate summons as well - response to an action - like Horn. So it can negate both groups. The difference is in the timing.
And of course that group 2. will be destroyed no matter what.
And that will trigger VLord's effect if he is really in group 2.
I described exactly what you wrote. RO can negate summons as well - response to an action - like Horn. So it can negate both groups. The difference is in the timing.
And of course that group 2. will be destroyed no matter what.
And that will trigger VLord's effect if he is really in group 2.
The Royal Oppression ruling specifically states
This bars Vampire Lord from being in the second group. He activates an effect to summon himself just exactly like the Phoenix. To attempt to allow the Royal Oppression vs. Vampire Lord ruling to be correct means you have to add a third category and timing to Royal Oppression that of not negating the effect that will summon but that "just because it is a monster summoning itself" Royal Oppression gets to negate the summon itself while the summon effect is resolving. This means that the Horn of Heaven and Solemn Judgment rulings are wrong, the current Royal Oppression definition above is wrong, that there are multiple points to negate a summon (which is incredibly wrong) and would mean the entire concept that you can't interrupt a chain while it is resolving is wrong.
There just isn't a mechanical argument for that many mistakes being made in how rulings have come out. It is far more likely that the one and only ruling in question that of Royal Oppression vs. Vampire Lord is in error as the person who wrote it down was only paying attention to "who controls the Royal Oppression" and not paying attention to the "where is the Vampire Lord when this destruction would occur". Also the fact that nobody had been told when this ruling came out that you could not "destroy" a monster in the graveyard.
This bars Vampire Lord from being in the second group. He activates an effect to summon himself just exactly like the Phoenix. To attempt to allow the Royal Oppression vs. Vampire Lord ruling to be correct means you have to add a third category and timing to Royal Oppression that of not negating the effect that will summon but that "just because it is a monster summoning itself" Royal Oppression gets to negate the summon itself while the summon effect is resolving. This means that the Horn of Heaven and Solemn Judgment rulings are wrong, the current Royal Oppression definition above is wrong, that there are multiple points to negate a summon (which is incredibly wrong) and would mean the entire concept that you can't interrupt a chain while it is resolving is wrong.
There just isn't a mechanical argument for that many mistakes being made in how rulings have come out. It is far more likely that the one and only ruling in question that of Royal Oppression vs. Vampire Lord is in error as the person who wrote it down was only paying attention to "who controls the Royal Oppression" and not paying attention to the "where is the Vampire Lord when this destruction would occur". Also the fact that nobody had been told when this ruling came out that you could not "destroy" a monster in the graveyard.
That it activates an effect is *what you assume*. It doesnt have to be! It can work as the others in group 2. if they (KONAMI, UDE) want, there is enough proof that it could work. It is a choice they make.
Raijinili stated that Horn should work, so I presented a way that it *could* work legally(no game corruption). This doenst mean that it works that way in the real game. KONAMI decides how it should work.
But I found a good reason that it should work as you say, because if it were truely a continous effect then negating its summon and destroying it would bring nothing because its continous effect would force it to revive again in the same standby phase. And this is the best argument for it to be in group 1. (Just if someone asks.)
Raijinili stated that Horn should work, so I presented a way that it *could* work legally(no game corruption). This doenst mean that it works that way in the real game. KONAMI decides how it should work.
But I found a good reason that it should work as you say, because if it were truely a continous effect then negating its summon and destroying it would bring nothing because its continous effect would force it to revive again in the same standby phase. And this is the best argument for it to be in group 1. (Just if someone asks.)
John Danker
Administrator
I've beat this thing to death with Kevin, Dan, and about every L3 and a dozen L2s. Nobody can tell give me a logical reason as to why it's ruled the way it is.
kingpinopie
Himoura Shinta
assuming that you all are still talking about Royal Oppression... I think the rulings make perfect sense... as long as the special summon doesnt take place in the damage step ( like when a searcher is attacked and destroyed due to battle, then fetches a monster to sp. summon)... than the effect can be used / activated.... but since an effect cant be activated during the damage step, it cant be used...
(Unless I am way off, and have no clue where this has gone)
and as for the Vampire Lord ruling, its seems pretty simple to me... .. if V Lord is special summoned, it can be destroyed by Royal Oppression... but since V Lord was destroyed by a card effect, it can then be sp. summoned the next standby phase ( once again).... and I would assume that royal oppresion can be used yet again to destroy him, at 800lp each time, it could easily hurt sooner or later.....
(Unless I am way off, and have no clue where this has gone)
and as for the Vampire Lord ruling, its seems pretty simple to me... .. if V Lord is special summoned, it can be destroyed by Royal Oppression... but since V Lord was destroyed by a card effect, it can then be sp. summoned the next standby phase ( once again).... and I would assume that royal oppresion can be used yet again to destroy him, at 800lp each time, it could easily hurt sooner or later.....
This may seem like a crazy idea but isn't there a rulings list or hotline for OCG rulings in Japan? If any member here speaks Japanese well enough I would gladly find a way to pay for the call if it were possible to confirm (other than the JERP since it only reflects what was historically given not necessarily current rulings) that this really still is a valid ruling regarding this scenario. I never had much respect for the concrete reliability of our rulings and explanations from UDE to begin with and the Dimension Fusion fiasco has just 100% reinforced that there is some fundamental issue that doesn't work in getting information from Konami to the U.S.
I'm truly in favor of getting a communication line opened directly to Konami. If the rulings we get are supposed to be identical the explanations may fair better straight from them instead of through the broken pipeline we keep seeing fail us.
I'm truly in favor of getting a communication line opened directly to Konami. If the rulings we get are supposed to be identical the explanations may fair better straight from them instead of through the broken pipeline we keep seeing fail us.
kingpinopie said:
For reasons why this logic does not work please either read the previous discussion of this thread (or one of the nearly identical threads where this has been beaten to death) or possibly just look at the explanation in the Unsolved Mysteries sticky. Quite simply it is that the Sacred Phoenix ruling clearly shows us that you can't destroy a monster while it is already in the Graveyard. Thus there is no way that Vampire Lord can resurrect itself over and over when Sacred Phoenix uses the exact same mechanic.
Raijinili said:
Dimension Fusion ruling stated you could bring back XYZ. We questioned ruling based on the fact that we had been given XYZ as nomi. Ruling sat forever. Finally ruling was changed because XYZ in Japan was originally not Nomi but was errata'd before it was translated to English. Now we fast forward six months to find that XYZ was never supposed to be Nomi and it has been errata'd and you can indeed use Dimension Fusion to summon it.
So the questions are
1) Who decided to errata XYZ in OCG? Were they incorrect in doing so?
2) If Takahashi never meant for XYZ to be Nomi and the Dimension Fusion ruling was correct all this time who was being consulted about the ruling problem? Did Takahashi forget that he meant for XYZ to be able to be brought back from RFP? Or was it some underling who took it upon himself to finally fix the wrong ruling?
I realize OCG also had this confused. My question is that if the Dimension Fusion ruling was originally correct and stayed on the books for a very long time when we had an understanding that XYZ was nomi and thus couldn't possibly be brought back, why the huge amount of time to get the ruling fixed? Where was the hold up? I have to assume that somebody in the chain was unsure about XYZ being nomi or it would have just been a quick fix and forgotten about.
Now, if it had been corrected immediately I would have assumed that it was a problem with someone making a simple mistake about Dimensin Fusion. The reason this is so odd is that it was not corrected immediately. It wasn't corrected in short order, or even before a year had passed. It stayed on the books while many people questioned the ruling and got to a point where it became an Unsolved Mystery here. Then out of the blue we get a correction, which implies that Kevin has gone to a lot of trouble to get the correct facts on this and that the answer is that XYZ originally came out with text that would have allowed it to be brought back by Dimension Fusion but was errata'd to be nomi in the OCG. Thus the Dimension Fusion ruling was from the original text of the monster and it was not corrected when the errata came out. Somehow this ruling was passed down and translated from OCG to TCG without anyone questioning that it was no longer a valid ruling and it took Kevin doing detective work to bring to light that the ruling was wrong and where the mistake came from.
Now we get new text for XYZ stating that it never should have been Nomi, and thus the Dimension Fusion ruling was right all along. So where did Kevin do his detective work? Did Takahashi flip flop on XYZ multiple times causing errata more than once to fix the same monster?
And I observe Kevin hasn't been nearly so verbal with this new development as he was with his post back in June:
So what's the deal? Why make such a verbose correction when we are used to stealth rulings? And why not get back on stage to let us know that we have been flip flopped yet again?
Now, if it had been corrected immediately I would have assumed that it was a problem with someone making a simple mistake about Dimensin Fusion. The reason this is so odd is that it was not corrected immediately. It wasn't corrected in short order, or even before a year had passed. It stayed on the books while many people questioned the ruling and got to a point where it became an Unsolved Mystery here. Then out of the blue we get a correction, which implies that Kevin has gone to a lot of trouble to get the correct facts on this and that the answer is that XYZ originally came out with text that would have allowed it to be brought back by Dimension Fusion but was errata'd to be nomi in the OCG. Thus the Dimension Fusion ruling was from the original text of the monster and it was not corrected when the errata came out. Somehow this ruling was passed down and translated from OCG to TCG without anyone questioning that it was no longer a valid ruling and it took Kevin doing detective work to bring to light that the ruling was wrong and where the mistake came from.
Now we get new text for XYZ stating that it never should have been Nomi, and thus the Dimension Fusion ruling was right all along. So where did Kevin do his detective work? Did Takahashi flip flop on XYZ multiple times causing errata more than once to fix the same monster?
And I observe Kevin hasn't been nearly so verbal with this new development as he was with his post back in June:
Kevin Tewart said:
So what's the deal? Why make such a verbose correction when we are used to stealth rulings? And why not get back on stage to let us know that we have been flip flopped yet again?
That's not how it works anthony,
Things are a lot slower to change over there when it comes to Card Text, they would rather just release a ruling to correct the erroneous text. Often when they release rulings, it takes a long time to change them when they become outdated, especially when it's a rarely used card, they mainly focus on the widely used cards.
It's the main difference between here and there, where here we would rather have the text changed, and we are are far more demanding about updates. Even for obscure cards.
What Kevin stated makes perfect sense (even though i find it fishy coming from him), and it often happens. That is one of the dangers of having delayed releases, sometimes things get changed along the way, and errors slip through the cracks, and since UDE has to wait for Konami's "ok" it takes a lot of unneeded time.
I have a question....Now that the text for "XYZ-Dragon Cannon" has been errata'd once again...does this make the "Dimension Fusion" ruling valid again?
[edit]Nevermind....brain fart. They still are never 'properly Fusion Summoned' becuase you never use "Polymerization" or "Fusion Gate", etc....
Sorry.
[edit]Nevermind....brain fart. They still are never 'properly Fusion Summoned' becuase you never use "Polymerization" or "Fusion Gate", etc....
Sorry.