You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
skull lair
- Thread starter mikoal
- Start date
I'm not sure though since from the way the card is written, it doesn't feel like removing monsters is part of the cost to activate the card and even if it is, if there are 2 monsters with the same level on the field, it just seems like you pick it at resolution. But there's nothing to indicate one way or the other in any of the rulings.
After thinking about it, I came up with this: You have to pick a valid monster Level first, and remove that many monsters for the Cost. During resolution, it works like Fissure, in that it'll destroy a monster (your choice) meeting the requirements, or the effect can simply vanish if a valid monster no longer exists on the field.
That's how it SHOULD work, as far as I can see, given that it doesn't target. Since you can't activate a card for no effect, you can't remove from play 15 or so monsters, because no Monster Card has a Level like that, nor can you pick a Level that does not exist on the field. But picking a Level is not the same as targeting a monster.
That's how it SHOULD work, as far as I can see, given that it doesn't target. Since you can't activate a card for no effect, you can't remove from play 15 or so monsters, because no Monster Card has a Level like that, nor can you pick a Level that does not exist on the field. But picking a Level is not the same as targeting a monster.
According to the ruling which says it does not target, you can and must destroy 1 monster that fits the condition. If there are several monsters with the same Level, and you remove from play that Level number of monsters, then at resolution you will destroy 1 of those monsters. If a card effect is chained to alter the number of those monsters, well, no problem. You destroy 1 of the remaining monsters.
Short answer, mikoal, yes. See Fissure for similar interactions there.
The card wording "Remove from play any number of..." implies you pick a number. You don't target those removed monsters, because it's a cost. You don't target a specific monster either, and remove from play its Level number of monsters. You just pick one arbitrary number.
Having said that, you're not allowed to activate a card that will have no effect, so the numbers you can arbitrarily pick are restricted by what's on the field. It doesn't target anything, though.
Short answer, mikoal, yes. See Fissure for similar interactions there.
The card wording "Remove from play any number of..." implies you pick a number. You don't target those removed monsters, because it's a cost. You don't target a specific monster either, and remove from play its Level number of monsters. You just pick one arbitrary number.
Having said that, you're not allowed to activate a card that will have no effect, so the numbers you can arbitrarily pick are restricted by what's on the field. It doesn't target anything, though.
Maruno said:According to the ruling which says it does not target, you can and must destroy 1 monster that fits the condition. If there are several monsters with the same Level, and you remove from play that Level number of monsters, then at resolution you will destroy 1 of those monsters. If a card effect is chained to alter the number of those monsters, well, no problem. You destroy 1 of the remaining monsters.
Where is this ruling?
Maruno said:Given that the JERP says it doesn't target, I'd say it's sense. It's worded effectively the same as Fissure and similar cards, and they don't target, and look how they work.
JERP also said Baboon could return itself.
JERP rules says lots of things, while they can help for support they are not always accurate or true for that matter.
I fully understand that. I know we play the Western version of the game, which tries to be a bit more consistent than the Japanese version. But since I haven't heard anything to the contrary, I'll stick with assuming the JERP is right on this matter for the time being.slither said:JERP rules says lots of things, while they can help for support they are not always accurate or true for that matter.
Hm, I honestly wonder why so many people come to the conclusion that the effect of SL does not target.
It destroys 1 face-up monster on the field. You choose which monster, and you pay the cost accordingly. It has "targeting" written all over it, at least imho.
While there's no corresponding ruling about SL yet, we do have a precedent that is about as clear as it gets:
Blast Magician
Attrib: Fire
Type: Spellcaster/Effect
Level:4
Atk: 1400
Def: 1700
Each time you or your opponent activates 1 Spell Card, put 1 Spell Counter on this card. By removing any number of Spell Counters from this card, destroy 1 face-up monster on the field with an ATK equal to or less than 700 points x the number of removed Spell Counters.
Very similar to the effect of Skull Lair, you have to choose the cost for the effect of Blast Magician so that it matches the properties of the monster you intend to destroy.
And the FET rulings say,
This is an effect that targets.
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=3916#3916
It destroys 1 face-up monster on the field. You choose which monster, and you pay the cost accordingly. It has "targeting" written all over it, at least imho.
While there's no corresponding ruling about SL yet, we do have a precedent that is about as clear as it gets:
Blast Magician
Attrib: Fire
Type: Spellcaster/Effect
Level:4
Atk: 1400
Def: 1700
Each time you or your opponent activates 1 Spell Card, put 1 Spell Counter on this card. By removing any number of Spell Counters from this card, destroy 1 face-up monster on the field with an ATK equal to or less than 700 points x the number of removed Spell Counters.
Very similar to the effect of Skull Lair, you have to choose the cost for the effect of Blast Magician so that it matches the properties of the monster you intend to destroy.
And the FET rulings say,
This is an effect that targets.
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=3916#3916