Rulings test

J

John Danker

Administrator
I give credit to tyloki who posted this test on another site for the couple of questions I'm posting. They certainly provoke thought.....

1. Dark Ruler Ha Des attacks a Reflect Bounder equipped with Heavy Mech Support Platform.

1.1 Does Reflect Bounder inflict the 2450?

1.2 Is Reflect Bounder destroyed? If yes, is it:

A: destroyed as a result of battle?
B: destroyed by its effect?


2. Player B has a face-down Cyber Jar.
Player A summons Tribe-Infecting Virus, and uses priority to use the effect. He declares Fairy (to kill his own Shining Angel).
Player B chains Desert Sunlight (to flip the face-down jar face-up)

Link 1: Tribe-Infecting Virus
Link 2: Desert Sunlight

Show how the chain would resolve, and tell what order the effects would happen
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
DaGuyWitBluGlasses said:
But Cyber Jar can be destroyed twice.. once in battle, and once by effect...

So why can't Reflect Bounder be destroyed twice?
Click to expand...
It's not.

Any effect that destroys a card, also sends it to the Graveyard. Using Cyber is a BAD example here, as there is a lot of the effect left out of the actual text. It is an effect that is designed to clear the field. If Cyber is already destroyed, it simply sends it to the Graveyard, if its still alive it also destroys it.

If i use MST to destroy a Spell/Trap Card, when MST resolves and destroys it, where does it go?

Does MST state "Destroy 1 Spell/Trap Card and send it to the Graveyard?"

Why not? because it is implied...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
LOL...Kevin doesn't know any better!...lol

That's funny.
Click to expand...
It is funny, but i have to admit I honestly think that...

He writes many of his rulings for 2 yr olds, and the problem is that many of us only understand 20 yr old or higher English.

So its like 2 levels of translation here, one from Japanese to 2yr old English, and then trying to interpret that into 20yr old English.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Here's how I see the way "Reflect Bounder" works.

I'm ignoring the "Dark Ruler Ha Des" ruling for this since I think it's wrong. (my personal belief)

This is only my THOUGHTS! I am not stating and/or providing the following as fact in ANY WAY!..:p

Scenario:
Player A has a face-up attack position "Reflect Bounder" and no Spell/Trap cards.
Player B has a face-up attack position "Gemini Elf" and no Spell/Trap cards.
It's Player B's turn. Player B attacks "Reflect Bounder" with "Gemini Elf".

Now, I'm fairly confident we can skip to sub-step 2 of the battle chart here, since there are no effects until now.

"Reflect Bounder" inflicts 1900 points damage back to Player B.

Now, I'm fairly certain, again, we can skip to sub-step 4 now since nothing happens until then. (Yes, I know I skipped step 3, but how hard is it to calculate 200 points damage?..lol)

Damage calculation is now applied, so Player A will take 200 points damage from the attack.
Immediately after damage is applied, "Reflect Bounder"s effect kicks in and it destroys itself. Please note this is BEFORE it has been determined to be destroyed as a result of battle.

Since the # of monsters has now changed on Player A's side of the field, a replay SHOULD occur, but it doesn't because we've already reached the Damage Step, so, if I'm not mistaken, we move to sub-step 6, since no other effects are activated.

"Reflect Bounder" is sent to the graveyard. And it was deemed destroyed by it's effect NOT as a result of battle.

Like I said above, this is how I see "Reflect Bounder" working. I admit I 'could'/'may' be completely and utterly wrong here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
It's not.

Any effect that destroys a card, also sends it to the Graveyard. Using Cyber is a BAD example here, as there is a lot of the effect left out of the actual text. It is an effect that is designed to clear the field. If Cyber is already destroyed, it simply sends it to the Graveyard, if its still alive it also destroys it.

If i use MST to destroy a Spell/Trap Card, when MST resolves and destroys it, where does it go?

Does MST state "Destroy 1 Spell/Trap Card and send it to the Graveyard?"

Why not? because it is implied...
Click to expand...

Allright then, so i can target my opponent's Exodia Necross with Ring of Destruction. Now since Ring of Destruction destroys cards, it is implied that it also sends it to the graveyard. Therefore Ring of Destruction will send Exodia Necross to the graveyard? (without inflicting damge of course)

Nope, that doesn't happen. It must destroy a card to send it to the graveyard.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
He's pointing out the flaw in Nova's statement that part of the 'effect' or action or whatever of cards that destroy is that they also send to the graveyard.

So if Ring is activated and targets Necross, according to Nova's theory, even though Ring doesn't do anything to Necross destroying wise, it should still send it to the graveyard since that's part of what it's 'effect' or action does.

He's poking fun a Nova, in a round about way.

But you already knew that didn't you...;) and I feel like an idiot now..lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, I don't get how that disarms Nova's statement. Exodia Necross wont go to the graveyard because of it's effect immunizes it to Trap Destruction. If it weren't for that effect it would go to the Graveyard just like any other monster. What does an outside effect have to do with Nova's statement?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
But that's what DaGuy was trying to point out. In order for the destruction effect to send the card to the Graveyard, it must successfully destroy it 1st.

It can't just arbitrarily send the card to the Graveyard.

And Nova is saying (from what I understand) that effects that destroy ALSO send to the Graveyard. And if a monster is already deemed destroyed, it can still be sent to the graveyard by another card that also destroys. But the 2nd card won't destroy the monster again, it simply sends it to the Graveyard.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding here..lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Trying to make sense of this discussion after my absense, LoL.

But, I agree that a card can be destroyed can be destroyed twice.

Cyber Jar as a result of battle then negated and destroyed by Divine Wrath.

I just don't understand how 1st card effect destroys a monster successfully, then a 2nd card effect that destroys the same monster would just "send it to the graveyard", it's implementing a whole new effect other than the effect on the card and what it's really suppose to do.

If I could get some example, I would change my mind, but I'm sticking to this.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
StRiKe_NiNjA said:
Cyber Jar as a result of battle then negated and destroyed by Divine Wrath.
Click to expand...
I guess there are a few ways to look at this.

1. A face-down "Cyber Jar" is attacked, flipped, and destroyed as a result of battle. It's effect activates AFTER is has been deemed destroyed as a result of battle. Opponent chains "Divine Wrath" to negate "Cyber Jar"s effect. "Cyber Jar" is negated. "Divine Wrath"s 2nd effect kicks in, destroying "Cyber Jar" AGAIN AND sends it to the Graveyard.

2. A face-down "Cyber Jar" is attacked, flipped, and destroyed as a result of battle. It's effect activates AFTER is has been deemed destroyed as a result of battle. Opponent chains "Divine Wrath" to negate "Cyber Jar"s effect. "Cyber Jar" is negated. Now, since "Cyber Jar" is already deemed destroyed, then "Divine Wrath" CANNOT destroy it again, so, as Nova states, "Divine Wrath" sends "Cyber Jar" to the Graveyard.

3. A face-down "Cyber Jar" is attacked, flipped, and destroyed as a result of battle. It's effect activates AFTER is has been deemed destroyed as a result of battle. Opponent chains "Divine Wrath" to negate "Cyber Jar"s effect. "Cyber Jar" is negated. Now, since "Cyber Jar" is already deemed destroyed, then "Divine Wrath" CANNOT destroy it again, so, the ONLY thing "Divine Wrath" does is negate "Cyber Jar"s effect. "Cyber Jar" still goes to the Graveyard because it was deemed destroyed as a result of battle.

Which is the correct scenario?

That's what we're trying to determine...still...lol..but with different monsters and similar effects...lol
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok, this is what I don't understand. I want to point out a couple of things.

Ring of Destruction is an "effect that "destroys" 1 face-up monster, it does not incluce an "effect that also sends it's the the graveyard".

It's going to be sent to the graveyard when destroyed by Ring of Destruction "involuntarily" "anyway", this is where destroyed cards go to, unless another effect says so of course.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok, from what I understand, Nova was simply stating that ANY effect that destroys a card, ALSO sends that card to the Graveyard, even though the card text does not always say 'and send to the Graveyard'. It is an implied function.

It was inferred from his statement that the 'destruction' part did not need to resolve successfully for the 'send to Graveyard' part to happen. So that's where the whole "Exodia Necross" thing came in.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Ok, from what I understand, Nova was simply stating that ANY effect that destroys a card, ALSO sends that card to the Graveyard, even though the card text does not always say 'and send to the Graveyard'. It is an implied function.

It was inferred from his statement that the 'destruction' part did not need to resolve successfully for the 'send to Graveyard' part to happen. So that's where the whole "Exodia Necross" thing came in.
Click to expand...

I know, I was just simply disagreeing with novastar's statement. I only putted in my 2 cents to raise my self esteem and self confidence. :D LoL naw, I'm just kiddin'
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
But after reviewing it, I guess I could agree with novastar's statement at 1 point, and it would work with my previous example.

Disclaimer: These events are based during the Damage Step.

After reviewing my examples, I believe I may be wrong, where I stated:

StRiKe_NiNjA said:
But let me ask you about effects that "don't target" that destroys monsters that is already "destroyed".
Click to expand...

This is where I maybe wrong, on how a monster can be somehow "destroyed twice"

Okay, lets move on and imply novastar's point of view here:

StRiKe_NiNjA said:
If Cyber Jar is first destroyed as a result of battle through calculation, then it's effect is negated by Divine Wrath, and destroyed and sent to the graveyard by Divine Wrath, can Cyber Jar be Special Summoned by the effect of Rope of Life? Hehe, this is the twist, so try to figure this one out... :D you've got an answer.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you cannot target a monster that is already "destroyed", but what about effects that "do not target" but includes an effect that does destroy?

If you can fit novastar's point of view with my example, then you could see that card's cannot be destroyed "twice".

You see, Cyber Jar is already "destroyed" as a result of battle after Damage Calculation, then it's effect activates, and is negated by Divine Wrath, but Divine Wrath cannot destroy Cyber Jar "again" since it was already destroyed as a result of battle, but it is "sent to the graveyard" since it was in attempt to be destroyed by Divine Wrath but could not. Also, Rope of Life could not be activated to Special Summon Cyber Jar from the graveyard since it was not destroyed as a result of battle, but sent to the graveyard by Divine Wrath's effect.

---Public Announcement---

StRiKe_NiNjA said:
I am so sorry, I click "Edit" instead of "Quote". If anyone in here has the original statement or the moderators can retrieve the original document here. I would greatly appreciate it.

>.< so mad at myself....
Click to expand...

If anyone could help me with this, I would greatly appreciate it. This quote should be on Page 6.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The main problem with the "destroyed twice" situation is that Konami unfortunately, when designing the game, decided to have Damage Calculation directly in the middle of the Damage Step instead of at the end, where it should be.

So you end up with already destroyed monsters (in battle) being affected by destruction effects.

My only conclusion is that when a destruction effect attemts to destroy an already destroyed monster (in battle), it is simply sent to the Graveyard at that time, rather than being destroyed again.

Being destroyed twice just doesn't seem reasonable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Ok, from what I understand, Nova was simply stating that ANY effect that destroys a card, ALSO sends that card to the Graveyard, even though the card text does not always say 'and send to the Graveyard'. It is an implied function.

It was inferred from his statement that the 'destruction' part did not need to resolve successfully for the 'send to Graveyard' part to happen. So that's where the whole "Exodia Necross" thing came in.
Click to expand...
My appologies.

What i mean to say was that if the card is already destroyed or destroyed by the effect itself, it is sent to the Graveyard. I am of course talking specifically about the Damage Step, and monster destroyed in battle, as that is the only time destroyed monsters still remain on the field while destroyed.

Of course a card that is not destroyed (Exodia Necross) is not sent to the Graveyard.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top