Really, I think you're boring me. Get better soon, please.
anthonyj said:
That's what we have been doing. That's what we have been quoting and discussing for 114 posts now.
And we're not done, so don't act like you've won.
anthonyj said:
How about this. You keep referring to Japanese rulings that support your position. Post translations of these rulings in English so that they can be discussed. Post each ruling you feel is relevant to this debate. I'll do the same with the English rulings here:
You are confused. I did that for the
Bait Doll debate. I even posted the rulings in the
Bait Doll debate BEFORE I started referring to them.
I referred to
Last Will and
Fusion Gate as two cards that were not chainable, yet could not have their Summons negated by
Royal Oppression. That was all. I also posted those before referring to them.
UDE said:
1. [Re:
Royal Oppression] There are basically 2 ways to Special Summon a monster. The first way is with a Spell Card like "
Monster Reborn", a Trap Card like "
Call of the Haunted", or an Effect Monster like "
Magical Scientist". The second way is built in to the monster, and Special Summons it without activating an effect, such as "
Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning" or "
Dark Necrofear". "
Royal Oppression" can negate both of these types of Special Summon. In the first case, you chain the activation of "
Royal Oppression"'s effect to the activation of the Spell, Trap, or Monster Card's effect, and negate the effect. In the second case, right before the monster is Special Summoned, you can activate the effect of "
Royal Oppression" to negate the Special Summon (the same procedure that you use for "
Horn of Heaven" or "
Solemn Judgment").
Explanation. Explanations, on the UDE site, have a higher percent of error, such as with the Nephthys VS
Divine Wrath ruling.
anthonyj said:
I will referrence Edo's statement "The release of Duelist Legacy 4 changed some wordings on cards -- one of them being Ascending Horn (e.
Horn of Heaven), and also relates to Declaration of God (e. Solemn Judgement). The rulings of the card with the new wording (and this includes Declaration of God) is that you can now ONLY negate Special Summons that are brought out via their own, inherent effects. What does this mean? Cards that use their own inherent effects to Special Summons them include the
Gate Guardian, Dark Necrophia (e. Necrofear), the Necrophia cousins from
Labyrinth of Nightmare, and even Giga Cyber (e. Megacyber). THESE are the cards that Horn/Declaration can negate." Notice the examples, they are the monsters that special summon from in hand.
And exactly how common were the self-summon monsters when this article was written?
Logic of non-elimination. Faulty.
anthonyj said:
Vampire Lord's Special Summon activates an effect and is NOT eligible to be stopped by
Solemn Judgment or
Horn of Heaven.
This is not the battle of who can repeat himself the most. I, at least, don't keep restating my primary stance. Please have the maturity to do likewise.
anthonyj said:
This very clearly states that if the monster is in the graveyard and would be destroyed while in the graveyard it will not be "destroyed" and thus will not have another opportunity to leave the graveyard. This is clarification from a current card release and should supercede older rulings where this mechanic was not clearly defined (i.e.
Vampire Lord vs.
Royal Oppression). Before this statement of cards in the graveyard not being able to be destroyed was made there was no reason to think that that was the case.
Vampire Lord could be destroyed while in your hand or deck as well as on the field and he would get his effect so why not in the graveyard. That is crucial to understanding why the
Royal Oppression ruling was what it was. We only learned that he could not be destroyed in the graveyard with Flaming Eternity and as we all know it can take ages for old rulings with incorrect information to be removed.
This ruling doesn't contradict the
Royal Oppression ruling.
Royal Oppresion has two SEPARATE effects.
Royal Oppression's effect of negating a summoning EFFECT is the proper analogy to this
Divine Wrath ruling.
Divine Wrath can't negate Summons, only the effects that cause them. To say that this ruling supercedes the
Royal Oppression ruling is to say that the
Royal Oppression ruling refers to
Royal Oppression's effect of negating the source of the Special Summon.
[Re: Vampire Lord] When you Special Summon "Vampire Lord" with his effect, your opponent can negate the Special Summon with "Royal Oppression", but the "Vampire Lord" will have been destroyed by your opponent's card effect ("Royal Oppression") and will be Special Summoned again during your next Standby Phase.
The ruling clearly states that
Royal Oppression is negating the Special Summon, and not the effect of the Special Summon.
Logic of wrong analogy. Faulty.
anthonyj said:
Attempts to squeeze in an "after the monster has hit the field but before he would be successfully summoned" disagree with the very core concepts of summoning a monster in general and where the line is drawn for chaining and responding.
And in which rulebook are these concepts clearly defined?
Dark Necrofear can also be negated by
Royal Oppression, and it would be considered "destroyed". Is this an illegal squeezing? And if it is not, do you believe that the ONLY reason that this is different is because Konami Said So?
But then, did Konami say so?
Logic of questionable assumptions. Faulty.
anthonyj said:
For instance once
Jinzo's summon is declared (from in hand) you can only negate the summon with
Horn of Heaven or
Solemn Judgment before he hits the field if that does not happen then the second he hits the field you are now past "negating" his summon and may only "respond" as evidenced by the fact that his effect is active as soon as he hits the field. There is no "window" to negate him "after" he has hit the field.
As I've REPEATEDLY stated, the card has hit the field. The game simply forgets that when its summon is negated. Just like it forgets that a magic card was activated when its activation is negated (
Magic Jammer VS magic counters, if I remember correctly).
When you summon a monster, the proper procedure isn't to show the card to your opponent and ask if he wants to negate your summon. You place the card on the field, and THEN ask if he wants to negate the summon.
anthonyj said:
In that same line if you could use
Solemn Judgment to negate a summon once a monster had reached the field that would completely change the card. And we wouldn't have this ruling:
3.[Re:
Embodiment of Apophis] You can negate the activation of "
Embodiment of Apophis" by chaining "
Solemn Judgment" or "7 Tools of the Bandit" or "
Royal Oppression", but you cannot use these against it once it is a monster.
This pretty clearly shows that you can't use
Solemn Judgment or
Royal Oppression to "negate" a summon that is resolving onto the field. They can't. They won't be able to once things are clarified.
A trap summons a monster. It exists as two separate entities. While they are the same card, it can be thought of in a way that tells you, no, the Trap is not special summoning itself.
anthonyj said:
You are mistaken in your interpretation of the rulings. Is that a clear enough argument?
Once again, repeating your stance. I KNOW your stance.
anthonyj said:
Okay your turn. What are the relevant Japanese Rulings which support your point of view?
I've posted them before, and I don't know the keywords to find all of them.
Under
Fusion Gate, on the JERP:
http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/puppiy/r...s5/Field_19.htm
◇この「フュージョン・ゲート」の効果による融合召喚にチェーンはできません。
"It is not possible to chain to a special summon by
Fusion Gate."
This example has no activation and resolution, unlike
Vampire Lord's effect.
「神の宣告」「王宮の弾圧」で特殊召喚を無効にする事はできません。
"It is not possible for God's Declaration (Solemn Judgement) or Oppression of the Court (
Royal Oppression, or Imperial Oppression) to negate a special summon by
Fusion Gate."
Last Will: Dang it, I can't remember where my "
Last Will" post was, and the Search function considers both words too common. Stupid word limits.