SACRED PHOENIX OF NEPHTHYS Question

Tonylaudat

New Member
If my opponet attemps to Special Summon Phenoix from the graveyard via its effect, and I activate either Horn of Heaven or Solemn Judgement in responce to negate the summoning, would Phoenix be able to revive itself again? Also, if so, where would Phoenix be considered to have been destoried?
 
Another thing, we know that you chain Barrell behind the back door to Ring of Destruction, even though it has no actual effect on ring's activation or resolution. All Barrell does is Shift the damage that you would have recieved to you opponet. Yet, we don't chain Barrell to the damage, but to the actual card that causes the damage.

Since this is true, then why can't one chain Horn of Heaven/SJ to an effect that Special summons a monster based on that logic? Personally, I can't see a difference between chaining Horn of Heaven to Monster Reborn, and chaning Barrell behind the back Door to Ring of Destruction. In both cases, you would be activating a card in responce to the effect of another card (which has not yet resolved).
 
Lots of differences there...

- Firstly, not all Counter Traps are created equal.

- Secondly, Barrel's text specifically states "when an effect that inflicts damage to your Life Points is activated"

So its clear that you are not responding to damage being inflicted, you are responding to an effect being activated, that will inflict damage.

- Thirdly, SJ can be chained to Spell and Trap Cards.

- Lastly, Horn of Heaven responds to a "Special Summon" not "when an effect that Special Summons a monster is activated"
 
novastar said:
Yes, but only prior to the effect resolving, which is what i was stating in my post.
But I'm not talking about negating the effect. I said to negate the activation.
novastar said:
By comparison, you can negate a summon attempt (similar to activation), but once fully resolved to the field (similar to effect resolution), it cannot be negated anymore.
Negating the attempt would be negating the effect that summoned it. The cards say to negate the SUMMON, not an attempt.
novastar said:
I agree, the RO rulings and Curtis appear to be somewhat unreliable, due to inconsistancy. However, your theory is just as unreliable, because it is inconsistant as well with 99% of all other cases. While the JPN ruling might match up with it, it would be nice to know why...
The inconsistency with the "other cases" is only there if we go by the assumption that Summons are close enough to regular resolving effects that a Summon can't be negated after the effect that caused it resolves.

The problem with that thinking is that there is no proof either way that other things can be negated after they resolve, since no card tries it. That this card doesn't exist doesn't mean that it can't exist because it may happen in the future, but it also doesn't mean it can because its nonexistence may be because of the impossibility of its existence. Personally, I don't think it can exist because, as I keep saying, Summons are special events (shown by the fact that you can't negate a mode change or a destruction without negating the effect that caused it).
Digital Jedi said:
I know we keep refering back to the Japanese rulings here, but my questoin is why? It seems to me the least refined rulings are from Japan, as there an erroneous ruling is less likely to be questioned and complicated rulings are not put through the ringer like they are in this language.
As I keep saying, the JERP rulings are more accurate in the long run than the Judge List. This is CONSIDERING that Puppiy has a lot more rulings on his site than UDE ever had on their site, their PDFs, or the Judge list.

Prove to me that they are "less refined". It wasn't that long ago that I told everyone about Curtis Schultz laughing about the Fusilier Dragon VS Megamorph ruling on the JERP. Which, needless to say, was the same ruling that he had to give out on the Judge list a few months later.

If we are to ignore the JERP rulings, let's also ignore the Judge list. Those rulings are certainly "less refined", since they don't go through approval from Konami. And they're translated by an unknown and questionable source. And sometimes, they're made up on the spot by those people who give them out. At least Puppiy's thorough. Even the simplest questions are verified with Konami.

Here's one. Dimension Wall
http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/puppiy/rule/rule4/CRV-JP059.htm

★攻撃宣言した相手モンスターの戦闘1回だけに適用?
2回攻撃できるモンスターの1回目の攻撃に発動した場合その戦闘だけに適用?2回目の攻撃は関係ない?

He's wondering: 1. whether the effect applies only once? 2. if a monster could attack twice, would the effect apply for both attacks if it was played on the first?

To us, the answer may be obvious, but Puppiy doesn't make guesses like the Netreps do.
Digital Jedi said:
It seems to me the least refined rulings are from Japan
Oh, by the way, rulings come from Japan. So... what exactly are you comparing the Japanese rulings to again?

Oh, you already knew that? Well, why did you say what you said, then?
 
You take critisism of the JERP too seriously. Humans created the JERP. Infalllable, imperfect humans. I also love how you always try to trap people in their own statements. That won't work on me. I'm not a kid, Rai. Don't treat me like one.

Who stated that the American rulings came from America? I didn't. I stated that they are more refined. In other words we question them in forums like these. We just don't accept things at face value. We want to know why.

I didn't say that we were superior for doing so, but I did say that that atttude creates more of an impact on the rulings. You can take this as an assault on all thing Japanese if you wish, but thats not what this is.

I don't like the JERP as it has answered few if no questions for me. If anything, I've never had a question clarified by it. Not even a little. You don't like that, fine. But don't try to turn my opinion back on me because of it. Just accept it and move on.
 
Digital Jedi said:
Humans created the JERP. Infalllable imperfect humans.
A single entity created the JERP and maintains it. If you call that human, I shall debate with you at another time.
Digital Jedi said:
I also love how you always try to trap people in thier own statements. That won't work on me. I'm not a kid Rai. Don't treat me like one.
But you made it so easy there...
Digital Jedi said:
Who stated that the American rulings came from America. I didn't. I stated that they are more refined. In other words we question them in forums like these. We just don't accept things at face value. We want to know why.
And the Japanese don't have their own forums?

Besides, consider how much influence we have over the system with our circumstances.

If UDE gives a ruling, and we don't like it, we complain to them. They go back to Konami and ask the question again. They come back and give us a ruling again.

If Konami gives a ruling, and Japanese players don't like it, they complain to Konami. But Konami is making the game, so it's always right. The Japanese players have less influence over the game.

Simply put, it is an innate characteristic of the system that the Japanese players have less influence than the American players. It's not a cultural barrier.
Digital Jedi said:
I didn't say that we were superior for doing s, but I did say that that atttude creates more of an impact oin the rulings. You can take this as an assault on all thing Japanese if you wish, but thats not what this is.
The best the American players can do is to have a ruling corrected to the Japanese version. It is only what comes from UDE itself that can influence the actual (i.e. Konami) rulings, such as with Bottomless Trap Hole.
Digital Jedi said:
I don't like the JERP as it has answered few if no questions for me. If anything, I've never had a question clarified by it. Not even a little.
That's because you rely on second-hand information. Babelfishing the JERP gets easier with practice.
 
Raijinili said:
But I'm not talking about negating the effect. I said to negate the activation.
...and, once again, i'm saying that u can only negate activation prior to the effect resolving. Just like you can only directly negate a summon prior the summon fully resolving. That's it, plain and simple, anything else is a changing of the common rules to "make something fit"

Raijinili said:
Negating the attempt would be negating the effect that summoned it. The cards say to negate the SUMMON, not an attempt.
I couldn't disagree more here Rai...

Chaining to negate "an effect that Special Summons" is completely different than "negating a Special Summon." Cyber Jar for example shows this, as there is more than just a Special Summon involved there, but yet it is considered "an effect that Special Summons."

The "negate a Special Summon" refered to in HoH/SJ's text is refering to Special Summoning from Hand, and u are directly responding to the event attempting to happen. NOT an effect trying to resolve.

The only reason Special Summons from Hand are considered "Special" is because card text is used to modify the summoning requirements, other than that, they share very little similarities with other (activated) forms of Special Summons.

Raijinili said:
The inconsistency with the "other cases" is only there if we go by the assumption that Summons are close enough to regular resolving effects that a Summon can't be negated after the effect that caused it resolves.
The fact that response timing for BTH and TT occurs directly after the effect resolves, shows us that the summon cannot be negated at that point.

Raijinili said:
The problem with that thinking is that there is no proof either way that other things can be negated after they resolve, since no card tries it. That this card doesn't exist doesn't mean that it can't exist because it may happen in the future, but it also doesn't mean it can because its nonexistence may be because of the impossibility of its existence. Personally, I don't think it can exist because, as I keep saying, Summons are special events (shown by the fact that you can't negate a mode change or a destruction without negating the effect that caused it).

As I keep saying, the JERP rulings are more accurate in the long run than the Judge List. This is CONSIDERING that Puppiy has a lot more rulings on his site than UDE ever had on their site, their PDFs, or the Judge list.
Fair enough, but i'm just going by 3 years of Konami/UDE Official rulings (not the judge's list or JERP) that, for the most, outline the proper timing for each of these effects.

The arrows point in the direction of the RO ruling being erroneous.

I don't think there is anything else to say.
 
novastar said:
...and, once again, i'm saying that u can only negate activation prior to the effect resolving. Just like you can only directly negate a summon prior the summon fully resolving. That's it, plain and simple, anything else is a changing of the common rules to "make something fit"
Hey, you said "u"! >_>

So basically, you're comparing Summons to Effects, while I'm comparing them to Activations. Neither one can be a direct comparison. Why is yours more valid than mine?
novastar said:
Chaining to negate "an effect that Special Summons" is completely different than "negating a Special Summon.
That's what I said. One is an attempt, while the other is the summon itself.
novastar said:
"Cyber Jar for example shows this, as there is more than just a Special Summon involved there, but yet it is considered "an effect that Special Summons."
I don't see how you're arguing AGAINST me here.
novastar said:
The "negate a Special Summon" refered to in HoH/SJ's text is refering to Special Summoning from Hand, and u are directly responding to the event attempting to happen. NOT an effect trying to resolve.
That's just a restatement of the stance without a point.
novastar said:
The only reason Special Summons from Hand are considered "Special" is because card text is used to modify the summoning requirements, other than that, they share very little similarities with other (activated) forms of Special Summons.
And because they don't use up the once-per-turn, of course.
novastar said:
The fact that response timing for BTH and TT occurs directly after the effect resolves, shows us that the summon cannot be negated at that point.
Where did you get "immediately"?
novastar said:
Fair enough, but i'm just going by 3 years of Konami/UDE Official rulings (not the judge's list or JERP) that, for the most, outline the proper timing for each of these effects.
Besides that single Explanation ruling, what rulings are you talking about?

Speaking of old rulings...
Quote: Edo
"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."

This is after the release of Duelist Legacy 4. That's also the first mention of that ruling by Edo.
 
Raijinili said

"The inconsistency with the "other cases" is only there if we go by the assumption that Summons are close enough to regular resolving effects that a Summon can't be negated after the effect that caused it resolves."

This is one thing that I hadn't even thought of when I began this threat, but I think that it is a great point!!

Personally I believe that Call + Jowgen proves this assumption to be untrue. This is becase if I activate an effect that would Special Summon a monster any my opponet Calls back Jowgen the Spiritualist in responce, here is what happens:

Chain Link 1: An effect that Special Summons a monster is activated
Chain Link 2: Call is activated brining back Jowgen
Chain Link 2 resolves and Jowgen is now on the field
Chain Link 1 the effect that was activated resolves (as Jowgen only prevents the activation of such effects, and does not negate them), however Jowgen prevents the monster from being Special summoned.

The key here, is that the effect resolves. This is different from Call + Jinzo/Spell Canceller to negate a Trap/Magic cards as those to cards actually negate the effects of those cards in addition to preventing their activation. Jowgen however does not, it only prevents the activation of an effect that would special summon a monster. Since the effect has already be activated (and is waiting to be resolved) Jowgen's presence on the field does nothing to stop its resolution. Therefore, if the Special Summoning of Jowgen in this case "Indirectly negates" the Special summon as novastar has suggested the indirect negation must occur after the effect has resolved.

This would appear to violate "the assumption that Summons are close enough to regular resolving effects that a Summon can't be negated after the effect that caused it resolves." Without this assumption, who is to say that Horn of Heaven can't be chained to Monster Reborn to negate the Special Summon of a monster.
 
The Official Rules say so. Jowgen prevents monsters from being Special Summoned while he is face up on the field, if the special summon is from a trap the trap will still resolve but will be prevented from summoning the monster due to Jowgen, the same thing would have happened with Jinzo. If the special summon is originating from a spell the spell will still resolve but the monster will be prevented, just like if Spell Canceller were on the field. This is not a difficult concept.

Once a summon has resolved it is considered successful and effects like Mobius, Zaborg, Manju etc. are triggered and monsters with continuous effects immediately apply. What Raijinili is suggesting is that somehow there is an extra "window" after the summon has resolved. There is not. This is poor extrapolation from a poorly worded explanation where the term "Internal Effect" was inadequate to distinguish from the reborn ability of Vampire Lord and Phoenix. It was never meant to include these monsters. It is not going to be expanded to include these monsters. That wasn't the intent of the card.
 
The problem here is that the Jowgan/Call combo has nothing to do with Horn of Heaven. Absolutly nothing. Again we are running into the assumption that a similar result should carry with it similar game mechanics. That is simply not always the case.

We've been through this before in threads dealing with other card effect situations. Like cards that switch control and with cards that activate in the Graveyard. We should know by now that just because the answer is 20 that the equation is not always 10+10.

Jowgan the Spiritualist and Horn of Heaven are only similar in that they deal with the prevention of summons. That is where thier similarities end. Horn of Heaven is a Trap Card and a Counter Trap Card at that. Applying the mechanics of a combo involving a Continuous Monster Effect is an egregious error. Counter Traps carry with them specific timing and conditions for thier activation. WHile many can only be activated in the Damage Step, Horn has a more broad range of actiation in that it responds to the declaration of a summon.

But here we seem to be assuming that because a continuous monster effect becomes active in the mid-resolution of a chain that Horn should be able to also stop the mid-resolution of a chain, just because a summon is occuring as part of that resolution.

This is a card effect resolving. This is a chain resolving. It doesn't matter how many times you say that Call of the Haunted/Jowgen the Spiritualist is the same thing, it is not. Because this is a combo, a chain. This is not a Trap Card with specific activation requirments. This is a Trap Card being chained to another effect to make the resolution of another effect resolve without effect. "Negation" doesn't apply here. It's not part of the effect. "As long as this card remains face-up on the field, no monsters can be Special Summoned. " Thats a rule in place that becomes active inbetween the resolution of this chain. It has absolutly nothing to do with "negation" in the Yu-Gi-Oh! sense of the word. In fact, if the text doesn't use the word "negate" then it has nothing to do with an effect that does use the word.

Horn of Heaven just desn't use the chain. Jowgen the Spiritualist doesn't either, but unlike Horn, its a monster that can easily become an active participant in chain because of monster's abilities to recur. Add to that that it's a Continuous Effect and you have a wholy different situation that doesn't even apply to Horn of Heaven. Horn of Heaven responds to a summon and summon only. If you try to say that it can respond to the the resolution of a card effect that just happens to include a summon, then you can say that Horn of Heaven, a Counter Trap Card can respond to any effect as long as a summon happens to be within that chain.
 
Tonylaudat said:
The key here, is that the effect resolves. This is different from Call + Jinzo/Spell Canceller to negate a Trap/Magic cards as those to cards actually negate the effects of those cards in addition to preventing their activation. Jowgen however does not, it only prevents the activation of an effect that would special summon a monster. Since the effect has already be activated (and is waiting to be resolved) Jowgen's presence on the field does nothing to stop its resolution. Therefore, if the Special Summoning of Jowgen in this case "Indirectly negates" the Special summon as novastar has suggested the indirect negation must occur after the effect has resolved.
Jowgen prevents the monster from ever hitting the field. Horn of Heaven would let the monster hit the field, then destroy it and make the game forget that it hit the field.
anthonyj said:
What Raijinili is suggesting is that somehow there is an extra "window" after the summon has resolved. There is not. This is poor extrapolation from a poorly worded explanation where the term "Internal Effect" was inadequate to distinguish from the reborn ability of Vampire Lord and Phoenix. It was never meant to include these monsters. It is not going to be expanded to include these monsters. That wasn't the intent of the card.
Why not try attacking my points with points instead of attacking my position with "It's wrong"? In other words, back your words up.
Digital Jedi said:
Horn of Heaven just desn't use the chain.
See, you make it too easy.

Horn of Heaven DOES use the chain. You can chain to it. >_>
 
I never meant to insinuate that couldn't be chained to with another Spell Speed 3. I meant that it wasn't possible to chain it to another card effect. Only respond to an action seperate from an effect.
 
Raijinili said:
Why not try attacking my points with points instead of attacking my position with "It's wrong"? In other words, back your words up.
See, you make it too easy.
That's what we have been doing. That's what we have been quoting and discussing for 114 posts now.

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:

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").

Notice the wording "Built in to the monster, and Special Summons it without activating an effect." That is what the Horn of Heaven ruling about internal effects is referring to. It was never intended to "chain" to Vampire Lord's reborning ability. 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. As was more clearly spelled out with the ruling above "Built in to the monster, and Special Summons it without activating an effect." Vampire Lord's Special Summon activates an effect and is NOT eligible to be stopped by Solemn Judgment or Horn of Heaven.

2. [Re: Divine Wrath] You can activate "Divine Wrath" when "Vampire Lord" or "Sacred Phoenix of Nephthys" activate their effects in the Graveyard, and their effects are negated and they are not Special Summoned; but because they cannot be "destroyed" while in the Graveyard, they are not destroyed by a card effect so their effect will not activate again.

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.

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. 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.

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. You are mistaken in your interpretation of the rulings. Is that a clear enough argument?

Okay your turn. What are the relevant Japanese Rulings which support your point of view?
 
The point of my last post (which I believe was missed) was simply this: All of our rulings, on Horn of Heaven and how it can be used are based on the assumption that a monster Special summoned by a card effect, is close enough to a regular card effect that the Special summon can't be negated after the effect resolves properly (i.e. without negating the effect that would Special summon the monster).

I believe that Call + Jowgen provides us a case which proves this assumption to be untrue since in this case Jowgen didn't stop the activation of the Special summoning effect, and is powerless to stop that effect from resolving properly. Yet the Special summoning of the monster is "Indirectly negated".

Since Call + Jowgen appears to prove this assumption untrue (or at the very least provides us an example in which this assumption does not hold true), then this assumption should not be used as the basis for how Horn of Heaven work.
 
Your post was not missed it just has no bearing here. Call/Jowgen is involving a continuous effect monster enterring the field in the middle of a resolving chain. That is completely different than being able to activate a spell, trap or monster effect as a response to a resolving chain link. You yourself properly termed it as "indirectly" but it isn't "negating" it is simply "preventing". Jowgen never has the power to "Negate" a special summon, just like Des Wombat doesn't "Negate" card effects that inflict damage. This is a whole different area, completely seperated from summon negation. It has nothing to do with negating a summon in any way shape or form.
 
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.
 
Back
Top