Wondering...

B

BenjaminMS

The Kozaky show
about Demise, King of Armaggedon's effect.

This card can only be Ritual Summoned with the Ritual Spell Card, "End of the World". By paying 2000 Life Points, destroy all cards on the field except this card.

If an effect is chained to "Demise's" effect to flip "Demise, King of Armageddon" face-down, he is still not destroyed by his effect.

This card's effect is an Ignition Effect.

But when you see such a ruling like Levia-Dragon - Daedelus...

By sending "Umi" on your side of the field to the Graveyard, destroy all cards on the field except this card.

When "Book of Moon" is chained to "Levia-Dragon Daedalus"' effect to flip it face-down, the effect still resolves, but "Levia-Dragon Daedalus" is destroyed by its own effect, since it's no longer "this card", it's just "a card".

Why will Levia get destroyed, while Demise won't? :confused_ While it has the same type of effect (and text: "By (cost), destroy all cards on the field except this card).
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Geez i missed this thread for some reason.

Anyway, there is absolutely no contradiction in the rulings.

What you have here is a case of ambiguity.

The problem comes from the term "this card" which is not defined by game mechanics.

"This card" can mean "this card, named XXXX (but not other copies of this card)"

"This card" can also mean "this piece of cardboard (on the field.)"

For the former, when the card is flipped down, it loses track of its name for most purposes. And so it is no longer sure if it was "this card" anymore, as it no longer has any idea who it is.

For the latter, the physical piece of cardboard doesn't change. And thus cannot be forgotten.

Now we jsut need a ruling for this situation for each of Dark Dust Spirit, Legendary Flame Lord, and The Last Warrior from Another Planet.

(I'd bet Dark Dust Spirit would be destroyed, the other two wouldn't. Just a guess though.)

ETA: Dark Dust Spirit: I mean if it were flipped face-down, then back face-up again)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DaGuyWitBluGlasses said:
Geez i missed this thread for some reason.

Anyway, there is absolutely no contradiction in the rulings.

What you have here is a case of ambiguity.

The problem comes from the term "this card" which is not defined by game mechanics.

"This card" can mean "this card, named XXXX (but not other copies of this card)"

"This card" can also mean "this piece of cardboard (on the field.)"

For the former, when the card is flipped down, it loses track of its name for most purposes. And so it is no longer sure if it was "this card" anymore, as it no longer has any idea who it is.

For the latter, the physical piece of cardboard doesn't change. And thus cannot be forgotten.

Now we jsut need a ruling for this situation for each of Dark Dust Spirit, Legendary Flame Lord, and The Last Warrior from Another Planet.

(I'd bet Dark Dust Spirit would be destroyed, the other two wouldn't. Just a guess though.)
Click to expand...
Dark Dust Spirit is a horrible card to mention for this kind of thing. Also, the rulings don't add up and yes they do conflict with one another. All the cards use the same line of text "except this card" and should be subjected to the same ruling that Levia-Dragon has. I'll explain.

Since Dark Dust Spirit doesn't even relate to this, I won't even bother with him. I'll just say this, read that card's text and tell me what it's destroying. Thus, it has no relationship to this situation.

Legendary Flame Lord and The Last Warrior from Another Planet will have the same ruling as Levia-Dragon. Legendary Flame Lord is an Ignition Effect and The Last Warrior from Another Planet is a mandatory trigger effect. Both are chainable obviously. Both will be destroyed via their effects if you chain Book of Moon to their effects.

The term "except this card" will only apply to a face up monster with that wording in the card text. The ruling with Demise is inaccurate because too many game mechanics say other wise. However, they ruled it as such.

This is a "Because Konami Said So" situation. There isn't any other reason.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
destroy all cards on the field except this card.
destroy all monsters on the field except this card.
destroy all monsters on your side of the field except this card.
destroy all cards on the field except this card.

When "Book of Moon" is chained to "Levia-Dragon Daedalus"' effect to flip it face-down, the effect still resolves, but "Levia-Dragon Daedalus" is destroyed by its own effect, since it's no longer "this card", it's just "a card".

If an effect is chained to "Demise's" effect to flip "Demise, King of Armageddon" face-down, he is still not destroyed by his effect.

Which of the two above effects are worded exactly alike? That's right one is Levia Dragon and one is Demise.

Demise is a BKSS. You can't honestly think there isn't a discrepancy between rulings. You should really read Dark Dust Spirit since if it is turned face-down it will not be destroyed because it is no longer a face-up monster thus being "this card" is no longer important.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"No news is good news"

Does that mean:

A) It is good news to hear that there is no news.
B) There isn't any news in the world that can be considered good.

Neither one can be decided from the sentence alone. There jsut isn't enough information.

Yet, its an often repeated sentence.

Why? Because its simple; easy to remember. The human brain doesn't accurately absorb more than seven things at a time. The above, having only 5 words, (fewer concepts than 5 to remember, e.g good news is only one though)

For most people, which ever interpretation someone first thinks of when they hear/read that sentence is what that person will stick with.

There are several possibilities influencing what a person's first interpretation would be.

IF a person heard taht phrase all on its own:
An optimist would see the first definition (its good news!)--Whereas a pessimist would see the latter (there is no good news).

Or if it were part of a story/essay the interpretation could be based on the context. So a story that is trying to warn you about something misleading, if the story ahd the tone, of "if its too good to be true, it isn't" than the latter interpretation would come. Or for the other interpretation: a letter pointing out that people would love to complain about the bad service at the bank, but nobody says anything about the service speed at some restaurant, then the managers of that restaurant should think there staff is doing a good job even though they don't receive compliments about it.

Unfortunately, people tend not to be able to overcome this bias, these people learn things by ear, but don't bother to find out what it really means. (Redundant expressions are a common product of this thinking, e.g. "completely unanimous")


There is not any information to say what "this card" or similar really means.


"This card" = this specific monster named XXXXX
example: 'Call of the Haunted' will lose track of which monster it is when turned face-down. Gradius Option loses track

Since the above is the more common scenario, someone is more likely to encounter it first, and stick with it fallaciously.

The truth is Armageddon is not a unique card, other cards do keep track of card that are turned face-down.

"This card was special summoned" is never forgotten, no matter how many times a card is flip-summoned afterward (re: Jowgen), as Jowgen's ignition effect is one that is considered with how that specific piece of paper was brought to the field.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I understand, but at the same time we are told by UDE to cross reference cards with the same effect to answer questions that do not have a specific ruling. And to use the exact same wording and have a directly opposite ruling makes it a very bad choice of wording. The explanation for the ruling for Levia Dragon states quite specifically that it's no longer "this card", it's just "a card".

Are we not to interpret that ruling as defining why this effect works this way? Does it not tell us implicitly that the wording is the reason? I may be able to better get behind your logic if they simply stated Levia works this way, period. And Demise works this way, period. But when they expand upon the ruling by defining the sentence structure as the reason and then turn around and ignore that with an identically worded card, it becomes BKSS. This is one of the reasons why Konami doesn't like UDE to go into any detail with card rulings. It is too easy to have to eat those words later on. Well this one was approved and posted to the "Official Rulings", it isn't like there wasn't a painful screening process to prevent this type of problem and yet still here it is.

I truly don't care which way they want it to work. I just want to see progress made in either defining each card better with individual rulings where there are questions, or sticking to some kind of templating that can be relied upon to help us to not need a ruling for every card.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top