Vampire Genesis vs. Bottomless

-Xe0-

New Member
Hi,
I found this question and wasn´t sure how the right answer would be:
Player A summons his Vampire Genesis. He calls priority to use the effect, discards a monster and set as target a Ryu Kokki in his graveyard. Now Player B reponses to the summon with a Bottomless Traphole. So VG´s effect is chainlink 1 and Bottomless is chainlink 2.
So the question was if both monsters (VG and Kokki) are removed from play according to some rules in the registry (like the ruling with Reborn ans Ultimate Offering.) or just the VG? I´m not sure about this so i´m asking here for help!
thx for reply
greetz
Xe0
 
I noticed just yesterday the ruling in the Card Registry:

If the opponent activates "Monster Reborn" and then chains "Call of the Haunted" (so that 2 monsters are Summoned in the same chain), and then you activate "Bottomless Trap Hole" after that chain resolves only the monster Summoned by chain link 1 ("Monster Reborn") is removed from play.

Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that a monster summoned within the same chain link as Bottomless would be destroyed? When did they change it? And why didn't they say something? Or did I miss it during my Disney trip?
 
Digital Jedi said:
Wasn't it just a few weeks ago that a monster summoned within the same chain link as Bottomless would be destroyed? When did they change it? And why didn't they say something? Or did I miss it during my Disney trip?
When Bottomless Trap Hole resolves it will destroy and remove from play monsters (with 1500+ ATK) that were summoned by the opponent in the same chain as Bottomless Trap Hole.

So if Call of the Haunted were chained to Bottomlees Trap Hole the monster summoned would be subject to it.
 
Ahh..so in the 1st example, "Bottomless Trap Hole" was activated in response to the last monster being summoned, so it would only remove THAT monster.

And in the second example, the monsters were Special Summoned in a chain with the activation of "Bottomless Trap Hole", and subject to being removed when "BTH" resolves.

Ok, I think I've got it down now.
 
Yeesh, THAT's someting Kevin should have claified in his original post. I'll never understand why answers from the Judges List are never more then a couple of sentences. I realize they don;t want to make mistakes. but clarification is never a bad thing. Lack of information could be considered a "sin of omission" as it were.
 
Back
Top