Weird call of the tournament

J

John Danker

Administrator
I just thought I'd start posting the weirdest rulings call I'm asked to make each tournament for fun.

Des Moines Regional last Sat.

Player 1 special summons Thousand Eyes Restrict and absorbs Player 2's face down monster, ends turn.

Player 2 draws and sets a monsters, ends turn.

Player 1 draws and in main phase 1 activates Nobleman of Extermination on the face down eqip. to his own Thousand Eyes Restrict.

If you want me to tell you how I ruled it I'd be happy to but it's not the intention of this thread. What I want to do is present scenarios to you to rule, on the spot, without looking them up.

It never fails, you always seem to run into at least one scenario you haven't seen before no matter how long you've been judging!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Was thinking on this on the way home yesterday and think that we do have to go with the literal ruling in that the card's face down, it's in the spell and trap zone and so must be considered a spell/trap (as spell/trap cards are considered monsters via the effect of Magical Hats). It's one of these ruling like with Drillago which seems to go against the spirit of the cards effect but holds up from a taking things literally standpoint.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Face-down cards can't target, if relinquished is removed from the field the monster equipped to it is destroyed because it no longer has a correct target. But a face-down equip could remain on the field, but that doesn't happen.

If we ignore the part about the card being "treated as an equip spell card." Then the card is a face-down monster, not a spell card.

NofE
"Destroy 1 face-down Spell or Trap Card and remove it from play"

not destroy 1 face-down card in the spell or trap zone.

We should only assume that a card changes game-mechanics if it specifically says so (or if Konami specifically says so:

Hino-kagu-wahtever specifically says that it happens before drawing.

Relinquished on the other hand, doesn't say the card is treated as being face-down. What it says is you equip the card as is, Relinquished won't check the stats of a monster that was face-down when it was equipped.

But then again:
Power of Chaos Allows Nobleman of extermination to target the card.
However i attribute that to a programming flaw (can't show the face-down picture without programming it in as face-down)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DimensionalWarrior said:
I still believe that the card doesn't equip itself to Relinquished, but it's Relinquished that equips itself with a card...That's why if Interdimensional Matter Transporter, Skill Drain or Book of Moon is activated, it will lose it's equip since Relinquished's effect is no longer active (not because the equip has an invalid target)
Click to expand...

That still should not make a difference, for the time while it is equipped it is still an Equip Spell Card, and equips are face-up objects. It is no longer a Monster Card, and it being face-up or down should not matter. It should be a face-up Equip with no effect.

The flaw here is that Nobleman of Extermination is only allowed to target face-down Spell or Traps Cards, not simply face-down cards is the Spell/Trap Zone.

It is really unimportant where the effect that converts the monster into an equip is coming from.

In the end, Konami would most likely rule this in favour of ARRJ's ruling, because most likely this a ruling the was siting around on someone's desk that noone actually officially asked on the board. Most of the "unknown" rulings are simply questions people never asked but they had official answers prepared.

I definately don't agree... but this is YGO...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
Thats why i love the ability to rule a situation how i like as a Head Judge, when no Official Ruling exists....
Click to expand...

MUAHAHAHAHA! The evilness behind the name of Head Judge...:D
I don't remember where I saw that if the Head Judge said that Pot of Greed's effect is to draw 3 cards instead of 2, then every player should draw 3 cards :D!

I would like to be a Head Judge sometime! :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay, bear with me for one moment cause this is going to appear repetative at first.:D
ilikepiesodie said:
kingpinopie- actually it is treated as an equip spell otherwise you couldnt use Magic Reflector with it
Click to expand...
Actually, if the absorbed face-down monster that is equipped to TER/Relinq is a legal target for Nobelman of Extermination than it is not a legal target for Magic Reflector. The ruling on Magic Reflector may make it seem that way, but if we apply the ARJP conclusion, than MR's ruling is presumably talking about a face-up absorbed monster.

I mentioned something earlier in relation to TER's equipped monster. The ruling on Skill Drain and Unions is:
"A Union Monster that attached itself to another monster before "Skill Drain" became active is unaffected by "Skill Drain". If "Skill Drain" is active, you can activate a Union Monster's effect to attach it to another monster, but nothing happens and it remains a monster."

Compare this to the ruling on Skill Drain and Relinquished:
"Monsters equipped to "Relinquished" while "Skill Drain" is active are negated and destroyed because "Relinquished" no longer has an effect that allows it to be equipped with a monster, and "Relinquished"'s ATK and DEF are returned to normal."

These two rulings clearly imply that unlike cards that start out as equips and cards that "transform" themselves into equips through their own effect, the cards equipped to Relinquished/TER are equipped buy Relinq./TER's effect. (That means that cards like Spell Canceller or Imperial Order would have no effect on ATK/DEF.)

I realize that this is not the real issue here. The real issue is whether an equip card can be equipped face-down. But it seams (at least to me) that these two rulings very clearly answer that for us. They can. And they do. But only through these two monster's effects.

novastar said:
That still should not make a difference, for the time while it is equipped it is still an Equip Spell Card, and equips are face-up objects. It is no longer a Monster Card, and it being face-up or down should not matter. It should be a face-up Equip with no effect.

The flaw here is that Nobleman of Extermination is only allowed to target face-down Spell or Traps Cards, not simply face-down cards is the Spell/Trap Zone.

It is really unimportant where the effect that converts the monster into an equip is coming from.
Click to expand...
Novastar, I don't agree that there is a flaw here. (Unless one considers the ability to absorb a face down monster in the first place is a flaw. In which, case I couldn't argue that. But it's a little late to change that one now.) The greater flaw would be if the game "considered" the card in quesstion' to be face-up. Right now, if we treat the card the way it actually is, in real life, and not through the imaginary manipulation of game effects, then, when we play certain cards, we don't have to reinterpret them. If Nobleman targets the face-down card than so does De-Spell. If De-Spell can target it than Magic Reflector cannot because it is face-down. If Magic Reflector cannot target it than XY-Dragon Cannon can't destroy it. If XY-Dragon Cannon can't affect it than neither can Mask of Dispel, or Freezing Beast equipped with Burning Beast.


What I'm saying is that one seeming incongruity (a face down equip) is much easier explained than treating an obviously face-down card face-up. Then all of the above mentioned cards would have to be applied in reverse. And that to me would be even more confusing. :confused: Just because it is an equip does not mean it has to be a face-up object. Because, as I understand the game, the physical orientation of the cards cannot be reinterpreted even by game effects. The ability to equip is a game effect and can be reinterpreted. It makes more sense to consider the monster a face-down equip than it does to say this face-down card is considered face-up. Because the former, in principle, has been done before, many, many times over. The ladder has never been done (at least to my knowledge) and would be a radical deviation from the game mechanics.


If I might add, novastar referred to equips as face-up objects. But doesn't the actual physical position of the card determine whether it is a face-up object and the imaginary effects of the game determine whether it is an equip? I would think that the two would be interchangeable. The position in this case, determining the object to be face-down and the effect determining it to be an equip.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lets also take into consideration that the Magic Reflector ruling is Official and the ARRJ ruling is not. So the "Nobleman can target the Equip when it is a face-down monster" arguement might be moot in the end.

Official FAQ said:
"You can activate "Magic Reflector" and put a counter on a Monster Card equipped to "Relinquished", and if the equipped card would be destroyed, remove 1 counter instead."
Click to expand...
The Official ruling makes no mention of whether the monster is face-up or down, and Magic Reflector's text states "Select 1 Spell Card that remains face-up on the field"

Those two combined would lead me to rule that Nobleman of Extermination cannot target it. Regardless of whether the monster itself is face-up or face-down.


Digital Jedi said:
If De-Spell can target it than Magic Reflector cannot because it is face-down
Click to expand...
De-Spell does not have a face-up or face-down restriction, you can target ANY Spell or Trap on the field. If the card is Set (in the Spell/Trap Zone) you flip it to check.

Let's throw yet another example in - Collected Power
Select 1 face-up monster on the field. Equip this monster with all face-up Equip Spell Cards on the field. If the target of the Equip Spell Card is not correct, destroy the Equip Spell Card.
Click to expand...
The text specifically calls for "face-up Equip Spell Cards"

And if we look at rule 3:
Official FAQ said:
Monster Cards equipped to "Relinquished" or "Thousand-Eyes Restrict" can be moved to another "Relinquished or "Thousand-Eyes Restrict" but if either of these monsters is already equipped with a Monster Card, the new one is destroyed. If these moved to any other monster, the cards are destroyed.
Click to expand...
The Equip belongs to Rel/TER and will be destroyed if on any other target, much like Premature belongs to the Special Summoned monster and only that monster.

Digital Jedi said:
Just because it is an equip does not mean it has to be a face-up object. Because, as I understand the game, the physical orientation of the cards cannot be reinterpreted even by game effects.
Click to expand...
Yes it does, in order for effects to "see" the card as an Equip, it must be considered face-up. Otherwise it is simply a Set card in the Spell/Trap Zone (unknown). An effect can indeed perform any conceavable action you wish it to, they are meant to break default rules and Rel/TER transforms the Monster Card into a face-up Equip Spell Card.


Bottom Line, once Rel/TER equips the Monster Card to it, whether face-up or face-down, it is no longer a face-down Monster Card. It is treated as a blank face-up Equip Spell, for the purposes of outside mechanics and effects.

Good debate
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Temperature

novastar said:
Lets also take into consideration that the Magic Reflector ruling is Official and the ARRJ ruling is not. So the "Nobleman can target the Equip when it is a ace-down monster" arguement might be moot in the end.

That ruling is Official and makes no mention of whether the monster is face-up or down, and Magic Reflector's text states "Select 1 Spell Card that remains face-up on the field"

Those two combined would lead me to rule that Nobleman of Extermination cannot target it.
Click to expand...
True, but one could argue that the ruling doesn't have to mention it because the card itself indicates a face-up spell card. Of course, that was just presUming the Nobelman "ruling" was official and Reasoning from that point on.
De-Spell does not have a face-up or face-down restriction, you can target ANY Spell or Trap on the field. If the card is Set (in the Spell/Trap Zone) you flip it to check.
Click to expand...
ach! :eek: I always get Bait Doll's and De-Spell's effect mixed up. My mistake. but you see what I was getting at.

Which is exactly my point that while the card is face-down, it does not have a specific card type (Spell, Trap, Equip, Continuous, Normal etc.). The card must actually resolve itno play as a face-up object to be viewed by the game as that "type". Rel/TER converts it into that "type" through it's effect.

Yes it does, in order for effects to "See" the card as an Equip, it must be considered face-up. Otherwise it is simply a Set Spell or Trap (unknown).
Click to expand...
I understand your Reasoning. I just don't think it would be a good idea for Konami/UDE to start "treating" face-downs as face-ups for any effect. Physical orientation of the cards has been the only constant in this game. Cards may get "transformed" into other card types but they've always "performed" (I am the master of quotation marks) thier respective actions visibly and in thier respective zones. There was no doubt my card was set, there was no doubt my card was up. Suddenly the back of my card is now the front of my card? I feel like that could lead to future headaches down the road for players and judges alike. The whole face-down equip thing could cause some confusion, but that could be explained away as an effect result more easily than the other.

Good debate
Click to expand...
Thanks. I try. :D

TOTALY POINTLESS EDIT: While polishing my Yellow Luster Shield in the Forest I began Reasoning on a Question. AssUming it wasn't a Mirage of Nightmareish purportions, I was suddenly assualted by a Birdface Harpie Lady with big Gray Wings. She was like a Little Chimera, a Monster Reborn from a Tremendous Fire! I heard Thunder Crash (I thought I had checked the Weather Report. They called for sunshine, Ray & Temperatures of 75 degrees) and as she flapped her left Phoenix Wing Wind Blasted me and I fell back, Stumbling over my shield.
"Your car is subject to Confiscation." she said in an Elegant Egotistical fasion and Forced Requisition papers on me.
"What!" I said expecting an Attack and Receiveing a folder instead.
"You have 7 days to Salvage whats left of your career, you Humanoid Slime! Return the company car or at the end of the 7 Completed days, we'll be forced to Lighten the Load."
"A Demotion!" I cried. What a Tragedy.
"But I'm a Tactical Espionage Expert! I'm not The Inexperienced Spy i used to be!" I exTolled with Primal Seeded rage. "I'm a Legendary Swordsman with a Banner of Courage no one can Taunt!"
Another Gust from her Gryphon Wing blew me like a Heavy Storm, an Earthshaker and I knew she wouldn't have a Change of Heart. "Your Vile Germs repulse me!"
The Ground Collapsed from a mysterious Earthquake and then I fell into a Bottomless Trap Hole.
I recovered from my Premature Burial Battle-Scarred and Recycled. But when I see that Harpie Lady sister again, I won't Rush Recklessly headlong into Blind Destruction, but I will make Sparks. And I will see to it that she is Dragged Down into the Grave to her Really Eternal Rest.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I gotta weigh in on this (as if my opinion mattered).

The Magic Reflector ruling may not have been made with the idea of a face-down card equiped to Relinquished. It doesn't specify the card's state. So you could say that because they didn't specify it, they meant both face up and face down, or you could say that they just hadn't thought about the state of the card thus didn't include the "face-up" and "face-down" words in the ruling. My point being that you can't use the Magic Reflector ruling as sole justification.

The basis for saying that the equip card has to be face up is that only face up equip/equipment-like cards can be equipped to a monster.

BUT...

That just happens to be an effect of the way the game is run. All equip cards are played when they are face-up. Why do you flip an equip card face up? It's because by flipping it face up / playing it face up, you can activate the effect of the spell card, which in turn, allows you to equip it to a monster. You cannot activate the effect of any spell that is still face down. The "effect" of a card equipped to Relinquished is zilch -- no effect whether it is face up or face down. Relinquished gets its ATK and DEF from its own effect. It says on its own card that the ATK and DEF of that card become Relinquish's ATK and DEF.

Look at it another way and take flip effects into account: A card that is equipped to Relinquished does not have it's flip effect activated even if it is face down when equipped. Yet, flip effects always activate when the card is flipped face up unless the card flipping it face up specifically states that they don't. Nowhere on Relinquished does it say to flip the card face-up, and nowhere does it say that it is treated as a face-up equipment card, despite them knowing that face-down monster cards would result in ATK/DEF of 0 (so they were obviously thinking about it). It seems dubious to me to say that since all other equipment cards are only equipped when face up, that a face-down-was-a-monster-equipment card is now supposed to be face up without flipping it face up.

Which really surprises me because that wasn't what I was thinking when I first started reading this thread. Kudos to John for figuring all of this out on the spot. Be truthful John, did you think this through or was it just a gut feeling? I guess that's why some of us are level 3 judges, and some of us aren't.

Does Disarmament destroy a face-down monster equipped to Relinquished, since the rules say it does not destroy a face down equipment card? (stirring the pot... :D )
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Does Disarmament destroy a face-down monster equipped to Relinquished, since the rules say it does not destroy a face down equipment card? (stirring the pot... )
Click to expand...
Yes it does, just as Collected Power can equip it to a different monster. It is considered a face-up Equip Spell Card while equipped to Rel/TER.

A face-down monster equipped to Rel/TER is NOT a face-down Spell or Trap Card, it is a face-down Monster Card, and should not be a legal target for Nobleman of Extermination.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JOls said:
Kudos to John for figuring all of this out on the spot. Be truthful John, did you think this through or was it just a gut feeling? I guess that's why some of us are level 3 judges, and some of us aren't.
Click to expand...

Oh SURE...you're trying to get me back into this huh? <laffin> First glance, I saw it as a legal target....second thought, I'd better think about it.....checked the AARJ (The AARJ also said TER was the same as Relinquished as far as both players taking damage)....still had to think about it.....checked with another L3 judge, he said no, then changed his mind.

Were either of us dead sure? Nope! In the end it was a gut feeling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top