Yu-Gi-Oh! Rulings Questions

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Acid Golem.

 

Use the colons/semi colons pls.

 

Materials are never "destroyed". They are not detatched but they get sent to the graveyard.

Otherwise, since you have the detatch before the semi-colon, it would be detatched before the Xyz is destroyed.

Some of them don't have it as a cost, but I was keeping it simple for the sake of this ruling.

[Miror B]

Some of them don't have it as a cost, but I was keeping it simple for the sake of this ruling.

Don't "keep things simple" if it means giving out incorrect knowledge. Detatching isn't automatically a cost, so don't say it is. All this does is cause confusion with stuff like Acid Golem vs Atlanteans.

[evilfusion]

I got an other question. Let's say I detach this fake card's effect: "You can detach 1 Xyz Material from this card; destroy a monster". Say I then choose to activate Divine Wrath, and negate and destroy that monster, would my Xyz Material be considered detach for the effect or destroyed because of the Xyz Monster being destroyed?

 

On the wording of your custom effect, you detached 1 Material as the cost. Divine Wrath negated the effect and destroyed the Xyz Monster.

 

The Material already detached was used as a cost and is considered as such. The other Material was not destroyed, and was sent to the Graveyard because the Xyz was destroyed.

[Zazubat]

I know that Xyz Materials arent destroyed, just a mistype. Thanks anyways.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Don't "keep things simple" if it means giving out incorrect knowledge. Detatching isn't automatically a cost, so don't say it is. All this does is cause confusion with stuff like Acid Golem vs Atlanteans.

It didn't even matter because his question wasn't asking if all detaching is by a cost. In his case it was a cost anyhow. The question's answered and also it's been clarified, so there's no need to make a big deal out of it.

[Miror B]

It didn't even matter because his question wasn't asking if all detaching is by a cost. In his case it was a cost anyhow. The question's answered and also it's been clarified, so there's no need to make a big deal out of it.

I make a big fuss because so many ruling issues come from a simple misunderstanding.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

I suppose, and I mean no offense by this, that knowing who it was I was answering I should have been completely precise from the beginning.

[Zazubat]

I thought you couldn't remove Tokens from the field to a specific place as a cost. Beasy Rising's rulings say otherwise: You can remove from play a Token to activate the effect of Beast Rising. The original ATK will be the value written on the card that Special Summoned it.

Is there something I am not getting here, or am I misinformed on Tokens.

[darkwolf777]

I thought you couldn't remove Tokens from the field to a specific place as a cost. Beasy Rising's rulings say otherwise: You can remove from play a Token to activate the effect of Beast Rising. The original ATK will be the value written on the card that Special Summoned it.

Is there something I am not getting here, or am I misinformed on Tokens.

 

"Removing from play" or "Banishing" is not the same thing as "Send this card to the Banished Card Zone".

 

You can banish a token for the cost of an effect.

[Zazubat]

"Removing from play" or "Banishing" is not the same thing as "Send this card to the Banished Card Zone".

 

You can banish a token for the cost of an effect.

"Removing from play" or "Banishing" is not the same thing as "Send this card to the Banished Card Zone".

 

You can banish a token for the cost of an effect.

I don't quite think I understand why.

[evilfusion]

I don't quite think I understand why.

 

With costs that specify location, such as "send to the Graveyard" or "discard to the Graveyard", or "return to the hand", they all specify a place the cost must be sent to.

 

Banishing is not the same way. Banishing/remove from play is not the same as "Send to banished zone". It's not a specific location, it's a generic term much like Tribute or discard (without specifying Graveyard).

[Zazubat]

With costs that specify location, such as "send to the Graveyard" or "discard to the Graveyard", or "return to the hand", they all specify a place the cost must be sent to.

 

Banishing is not the same way. Banishing/remove from play is not the same as "Send to banished zone". It's not a specific location, it's a generic term much like Tribute or discard (without specifying Graveyard).

Is there any card that say discard to the graveyard? You alwways discard to the graveyard as far as I know. But it make sense the way you describe it, but I do wish that cards would say to the Banished Zone or something like that, cause I can see Tokens being extreamly useful for cards that banish monster on the field for effects then, but of course that will never happen.

[Miror B]

Is there any card that say discard to the graveyard?

Brionac comes to mind

[Cute Rotten Yoshika]

Is there any card that say discard to the graveyard? You alwways discard to the graveyard as far as I know. But it make sense the way you describe it, but I do wish that cards would say to the Banished Zone or something like that, cause I can see Tokens being extreamly useful for cards that banish monster on the field for effects then, but of course that will never happen.

 

yes. D.D Crow, Brionac, some others. "discard" and "discard to the graveyard are different".

[Aix]

Can Gogogo Ghost still use his effect if he was Special Summoned in Defense Position?

[darkwolf777]

Can Gogogo Ghost still use his effect if he was Special Summoned in Defense Position?

 

Edit: Apparently what I said here doesn't apply.

[Zazubat]

Its an optional effect.  In order to activate it, you must be able to perform its effects at activation.  If its already in Defense Position, then you wouldn't be able to change it to Defense Position and therefore cannot activate the effect.

so if it was a mandatory effect, then if it was in DP would it just bypass that and the effect would continue?

[evilfusion]

To my knowledge, this is actually incorrect, and cards like Goblindbergh and Gogogo Ghost MAY activate even if they were Summoned in DEF (Light of Intervention and Gogogo Giant, respectively). I always felt Ghost would work if SSed in DEF because it's almost blatantly supposed to combo with Gogogo Giant.

 

The PSCT article here: http://www.konami.com/yugioh/articles/?p=4514

 

It states that when the card text says "then", the actions occur in sequence, not simultaneously, and that part B is not required to resolve part A.

 

Admittedly, it is vague whether this only applies to resolution, or also activation. I have been searching for a source that will confirm either way. The best I found was a link to a Japanese site that evidently one of the Q+A questions on Gogogo Ghost says you can.

 

Link: http://yugioh-wiki.net/index.php?%A1%D4%A5%B4%A5%B4%A5%B4%A5%B4%A1%BC%A5%B9%A5%C8%A1%D5

 

I then went to a translator program and checked those questions. According to that (and retyped to actually make sense in English sentence structures)...

 

Q: Can you activate Gogogo Ghost's effect without missing the timing?

A: Yes.

 

Q: Can you activate the effect if it was Special Summoned in DEF position?

A: Yes

 

Q: I have no idea what the translation means

A: The answer is evidently yes.

 

Q: Can you use the effect during Damage Step?

A: Yes.

 

Q: If something chains to put Gogogo Ghost in DEF before resolution, does it still resolve?

A: Yes.

[darkwolf777]

In sequence nor simultaneously would not make a difference when in the game you're expected to follow all effects of a card.  If changing it to Defense Position is part of the effect, then at activation, it must be able to be changed to Defense Position in order to be activated.  I don't see why Gogogo Ghost would be different.

 

If that's how its supposed to work, I can't see why at the moment.

 

Edit: Goblindbergh is also allowed to activate when Normal Summoned in face-up Defense Position, so I suppose you can always apply the effect of changing a monster to specifically Attack or specifically Defense position for these effects, though why is still beyond me.

[evilfusion]

My only hunch is the order. Goblindbergh and Gogogo Giant/Ghost say to perform the action, then switch. Whereas Lyla switches, and then performs the action. If Lyla can't switch, it can't destroy. If Ghost can't SS, it won't switch. But if Ghost can't switch, it still SSes.

 

Maybe the fact it's in sequence really does make a difference. If it was simultaneous, it probably wouldn't work. That's what I gathered from the PSCT article, anyway. "Then" is the only one that isn't simultaneous.

[Zazubat]

In sequence nor simultaneously would not make a difference when in the game you're expected to follow all effects of a card.  If changing it to Defense Position is part of the effect, then at activation, it must be able to be changed to Defense Position in order to be activated.  I don't see why Gogogo Ghost would be different.

 

If that's how its supposed to work, I can't see why at the moment.

 

Edit: Goblindbergh is also allowed to activate when Normal Summoned in face-up Defense Position, so I suppose you can always apply the effect of changing a monster to specifically Attack or specifically Defense position for these effects, though why is still beyond me.

That site Evil refered to seems to be down, but from what I read it's a site I have been to before, and if I remember correctly, "then" said something about like this: "A is required for B, but NOT vice-versa. If A does not happen, then stop. If B cannot happen, you still do A. It might be wrong though."

 

EDIT: It also says something like this on the wikia, so I assume it's right.

[evilfusion]

Darkwolf's edit seems to be noting that cards similar to Ghost (Goblindbergh) do work the way I said it does. The logic of why isn't perfectly clear to him, though, and it does seem to be a bit of a hazy spot.

[Zazubat]

My only hunch is the order. Goblindbergh and Gogogo Giant/Ghost say to perform the action, then switch. Whereas Lyla switches, and then performs the action. If Lyla can't switch, it can't destroy. If Ghost can't SS, it won't switch. But if Ghost can't switch, it still SSes.

 

Maybe the fact it's in sequence really does make a difference. If it was simultaneous, it probably wouldn't work. That's what I gathered from the PSCT article, anyway. "Then" is the only one that isn't simultaneous.

If you're talking about Lyla, Lightsworn Sorceress, then the "and" rules are as followed: "BOTH are required. If you cannot do both, then you do nothing." This is the only one that could possibly fall into this trap (in which if it can't destroy it can't destroy you can't switch and if you can't switch you can't destroy), where "And if you do" follows the same rules as "then" (except for the fact that you can activate card effects to both A and to B, as "And if you do" is considered to happen simultaneously), and "also" where you can just do anything you want to.

[darkwolf777]

Lyla specifically says "This Attack Position card to Defense Position".  The others do not specify that it needed to be in Attack Position.   Not sure if that makes the difference here.

[Zazubat]

Lyla specifically says "This Attack Position card to Defense Position".  The others do not specify that it needed to be in Attack Position.   Not sure if that makes the difference here.

The only thing that matters is the order, and for "and" effects it actually doesn't matter because you need to do both otherwise you can't use the effect. Cards like Gogogo Ghost say "then" in which B needs A to happen otherwise you can't do B. In which case if you reversed the two, you would have the same problem as with Lyla which in case you can't switch, you can't do B.