Strike Ninja- weird situations

D

Dr Sin

New Member
I've read Curtis article at metagame.com and just to clarify, let me ask about 2 situations (I think there are some points I didn't understand):

1) TP summons Strike Ninja. NTP has 2 fd s/t (trap hole and BTH). NTP responds with TH (link 1). TP decides to use Ninja's efffect (Link 2) remmoving 2 darks from grave. Then, NTP adds BTH to the chain (link 3). Can TP still use Ninja's ability as link 4, removing Ninja before BTH can resolve, despite of Ninja text states "You can only use this effect once per turn"? (I believe the answer is yes, because I think the text really means activate and resolve once per turn, but I'm not sure)

2) Same as above, but link 3 is now a Divine Wrath. Ninja can use his ability to remove himself even against this spell speed 3 effect?

Thanks in advance
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Edit_ reponding to Digital Jedi



No, you are right. Exactly, Negating an effect is totally different from it not having resolved yet. While if tp summons Strike Ninja and NTP Played Spell binding circle and Then TP activated Strike Ninja's effect and then you were able to negate the activation of his effect somehow. It would resolve with the Spellbinding Circle landing on Strike Ninja and then as soon as they had all resolved you could again pay Strike Ninja's cost and reactivate him and take him out of play shedding the spell binding. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would negate Ninja's activation without destroying but "Hypothetically speaking". If Negated you could activate him if the field met it's cryteria later.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lancedolittle said:
I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would negate Ninja without destroying but "Hypothetically speaking". If Negated you could activate him if the field met it's cryteria later.
Click to expand...
"Skill Drain" will negate his effect but not negate the activation of his effect. So, if "Skill Drain" is chained to the activation of his effect, AND successfully negates the effect, then, if "Skill Drain" is later removed from the field, you still would NOT be able to use "Strike Ninja"s effect again because the activation was not negated, only the effect.

[edit]BTW..the ONLY card I've found so far that will negate both the activation and effect of a monster WITHOUT destroying that monster is "Royal Command". I've been trying to work out a scenario with a 'once per turn' Flip monster and "Royal Command" but haven't had any luck yet..lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Whoop! Hence why I said earlier that "Strike Ninja" being a Multi-trigger seems to be the crux (?) of our issue...lol. It appears to be the ONLY chainable 'once per turn' monster in the game.
Click to expand...

Chainable yes, but not multiple times. Does no one else have a problem with the word once? It seems so clear. Now are we planning to change the language of Strike Ninja?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I know someone is probably waiting for my voice to chime in here, soooo

Strike Ninja's "Use Once Per Turn" effect is pretty much what it says.

If you attempt to use his effect, and your opponent creates a situation where you may then "chain" Strike Ninja's effect several times before it resolves, then that is perfectly legal as you have only "activated" his effect once, and are merely chaining it prior to successful resolution. You arent removing him several times, just chaining.

If you attempted to use his effect, and your opponent were to "negate" his effect somehow, then I would say that it has the same affect as trying to attack with a monster and it gets negated, or trying to Normal Summon and your opponent activates Solemn Judgment. Your summon was not successful, yet you still "attempted" to Normal Summon, so you dont get another chance to do so.

The thing to remember is, his effect isnt "to activate", its "to remove himself from play".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lancedolittle said:
Chainable yes, but not multiple times. Does no one else have a problem with the word once? It seems so clear. Now are we planning to change the language of Strike Ninja?
Click to expand...
Go back and read what was posted on #37 by me and then Nova's reply on #38. There may be a 'loophole'.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
The effect activated and resolved without effect. It wasn't negated. That's why I agree with this ruling.
Click to expand...
No that's not important, honestly "resolving without effect" is pretty much the same thing as negation of resolution.

Even IF only the resolution of the effect was "negated" the restriction would still exist.

The only way to stop the restriction would be to negate activation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
"Skill Drain" will negate his effect but not negate the activation of his effect. So, if "Skill Drain" is chained to the activation of his effect, AND successfully negates the effect, then, if "Skill Drain" is later removed from the field, you still would NOT be able to use "Strike Ninja"s effect again because the activation was not negated, only the effect.

[edit]BTW..the ONLY card I've found so far that will negate both the activation and effect of a monster WITHOUT destroying that monster is "Royal Command". I've been trying to work out a scenario with a 'once per turn' Flip monster and "Royal Command" but haven't had any luck yet..lol.
Click to expand...
]

Skill Drain doesn't apply to my scenario since to quote you it negates the resolution not the activation of effect and only if monster is still on the field. But thanks for playing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
No that's not important, honestly "resolving without effect" is pretty much the same thing as negation of resolution.

Even IF only the resolution of the effect was "negated" the restriction would still exist.

The only way to stop the restriction would be to negate activation.
Click to expand...
Correct, and the ruling you posted proves that point. Which is exactly what I said that you quoted just now...lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Go back and read what was posted on #37 by me and then Nova's reply on #38. There may be a 'loophole'.
Click to expand...
It's not really a "loophole" it's always been there, it's just as you say, SN being SS2 allows us to see a side of this that previously we couldn't see.

Gain a better understanding of chaining, and when activation is considered "successful"...i really like the Curse ruling too...makes you think.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Correct, and the ruling you posted proves that point. Which is exactly what I said that you quoted just now...lol.
Click to expand...
When you say "negated" you have to specify "activation" or "resolution" or both...otherwise things get confused.

...and i did say at the end that Curtis may be right on this ;).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lancedolittle said:
Skill Drain doesn't apply to my scenario since to quote you it negates the resolution not the activation of effect and only if monster is still on the field. But thanks for playing.
Click to expand...
It fit exactly what you posted. You did not post anything about negating "Strike Ninja"s activation, you only stated negating 'Ninja' without destroying it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Correct, and the ruling you posted proves that point. Which is exactly what I said that you quoted just now...lol.
Click to expand...

Okay now you talking in circles. oooEEEoooo. So in short are we for this ruling or against it? And by we I mean Skey.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
When you say "negated" you have to specify "activation" or "resolution" or both...otherwise things get confused.
Click to expand...
You are correct, and I apologize...seeing as how I just 'griped' at Rob for the same thing...lol.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
It fit exactly what you posted. You did not post anything about negating "Strike Ninja"s activation, you only stated negating 'Ninja' without destroying it.
Click to expand...

Okay So you were supposed to read my mind about Negating his activation. Is that too much to ask on my Birthday?:(

BTW I edited it so now mine makes since and yours doesn't. lol :p
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
Gain a better understanding of chaining, and when activation is considered "successful"...i really like the Curse ruling too...makes you think.
Click to expand...
Umm...are you making a general statement, or telling me that I need to learn more about chaining?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Umm...are you making a general statement, or telling me that I need to learn more about chaining?
Click to expand...
No no, i'm saying that in general for everyone, myself included, SN illustrates a side of chaining that was difficult to see before.

It's a good tool for eveyone.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
No no, i'm saying that in general for everyone, myself included, SN illustrates a side of chaining that was difficult to see before.

It's a good tool for eveyone.
Click to expand...
Oh..ok..cause I was about to sick Bishop on you!...:cog_mad_j....j/k!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
anthonyj said:
In fact if you were to tally things up I think Curtis has given us more just plain wrong answers then anybody else at Upperdeck.
Click to expand...
That's not fair. Curtis also gives the most answers. Steve NEVER answers. Kevin Tewart PRETENDS to answer.

For all we know, Curtis may be fed answers that someone else is unsure of, so they're too afraid to say it themselves.
Nobody and everyone said:
Use = Activate, because Use != Resolve
Click to expand...
It may be that use = resolve, as opposed to "successfully resolve". What think you?

Oh, and I didn't know that Metagame had a click-on-the-little-card's-name!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top