Yu-Gi-Oh! Rulings Questions

[Miror B]

Is there a difference between "when" mandatory triggers and "if" mandatory triggers?

Mandatory? Nope. No difference at all.

[Aix]

Does Crimson Blader's eff still go off if he crashes something and is destroyed by battle?

[Cute Rotten Yoshika]

Does Crimson Blader's eff still go off if he crashes something and is destroyed by battle?

 

no. "and sent to the graveyard" means it checks after the damage step, at which point crimson blader is dead and cant activate. its the same as shura hydrogeddon etc.

[Aix]

no. "and sent to the graveyard" means it checks after the damage step, at which point crimson blader is dead and cant activate. its the same as shura hydrogeddon etc.

Hm, the DN Admin said that it still worked and my opponent was also adamant about it.

[Cute Rotten Yoshika]

 

Hm, the DN Admin said that it still worked and my opponent was also adamant about it.

 

 

 

both the admin and your opponent were wrong. the admins are not right 100% of the time and i would never trust a dn player on rulings knowledge.

[evilfusion]

Yeah, the Admins aren't perfect, and in this case, was incorrect. When an activation timing says "and sends to Graveyard", it still has to have survived the battle to activate, whereas Jurrac Guaiba just says "destroyed", and will activte even if it also died.

[Miror B]

no. "and sent to the graveyard" means it checks after the damage step, at which point crimson blader is dead and cant activate. its the same as shura hydrogeddon etc.

It's actually still the Damage Step, just after Damage Calculation.

Same timing as Shura. (Which also doesn't work I'm just saying this to prevent people from thinking they can use Skill Drain or something)

[Cute Rotten Yoshika]

It's actually still the Damage Step, just after Damage Calculation.

Same timing as Shura. (Which also doesn't work I'm just saying this to prevent people from thinking they can use Skill Drain or something)

 

right. silly me. but despite that small error, my point is still correct. the timing doesnt work because "and sent to the graveyard" means the monster has to survive the battle.

[Zazubat]

If my opponent summons Abysspike, activates it's eff, discards Marksman, can I then use my BTH, or has my chance passed?

[darkwolf777]

If my opponent summons Abysspike, activates it's eff, discards Marksman, can I then use my BTH, or has my chance passed?

 

You can activate Bottomless Trap Hole as Chain Link #2 (or higher) in response to the summon to destroy and banish Abysspike.

 

A summon is not something that is chained to.  You don't chain "Bottomless Trap Hole" to a summon, but you activate it in response to the summon.  If the summon is the last thing to occur, then you can activate Bottomless Trap Hole in that chain.  It does not have to be Chain Link #1.  You could activate multiple Bottomless Trap Holes to the same summon if you wanted to.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Technically speaking, monsters are destroyed "due to battle damage", correct? Which is why Waboku only said in its original text that battle damage becomes 0 and the reason why monsters with 0 ATK can't destroy each other? Five-Headed dragon kind of mixes this up with its original text stating "This card does not take any Battle Damage, and cannot be destroyed by battle with an EARTH, WATER, FIRE, WIND, or DARK monster. (Battle Damage is still inflicted to players.)" though. So what would be the correct way of phrasing this?

[Miror B]

Technically speaking, monsters are destroyed "due to battle damage", correct? Which is why Waboku only said in its original text that battle damage becomes 0 and the reason why monsters with 0 ATK can't destroy each other? Five-Headed dragon kind of mixes this up with its original text stating "This card does not take any Battle Damage, and cannot be destroyed by battle with an EARTH, WATER, FIRE, WIND, or DARK monster. (Battle Damage is still inflicted to players.)" though. So what would be the correct way of phrasing this?

Look at the latest FGD errata, It's completely omitted the "No battle damage".

Correct way is just "Cannot be destroyed by battle".

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Look at the latest FGD errata, It's completely omitted the "No battle damage".

Correct way is just "Cannot be destroyed by battle".

I'm not speaking from a grammatical point of view, I even noticed that these were the old texts. I'm just asking if I'm correct in my assumption that monsters "take battle damage".

[evilfusion]

I'm not speaking from a grammatical point of view, I even noticed that these were the old texts. I'm just asking if I'm correct in my assumption that monsters "take battle damage".

 

The current definition of Battle Damage is the damage inflicted to a player due to ATK/DEF being higher than the other battling monster. Monsters are not considered to take Battle Damage anymore. Only a very select number of cards ever said otherwise (Waboku and FHD notably), and their texts have been changed to remove that inconsistency.

 

The phrasing you may be thinking of is "If this card is destroyed by battle".

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

Like I said, I'm not looking for grammar, I'm just asking if it's a fact or not. Maybe the terminology isn't used anymore, but that's how it was explained to me forever ago why 0 ATK monsters can't destroy each other.

[evilfusion]

Like I said, I'm not looking for grammar, I'm just asking if it's a fact or not. Maybe the terminology isn't used anymore, but that's how it was explained to me forever ago why 0 ATK monsters can't destroy each other.

 

The Zero ATK rule is actually a rule in itself that was thankfully added to rulebooks because I dont think it had been documented officially before that.

 

The reason I'm not giving you a straight answer is because other cards that prevent Battle Damage or turn Battle Damage to 0 only affect players taking damage, and monsters will still be destroyed by battle. The original card that made this confusing was Waboku, which has been errata'd.

 

So, in a strictly technical sense, monsters are not destroyed from battle damage. They are destroyed by battle. Battle Damage is the concept of how much damage a monster is capable of inflicting to a player simply by battling. Zero ATK is a separate rule justifying why a monster with no attack force behind its battle cannot destroy anything, even if it battles a monster with equal ATK.

 

Yugioh makes the logic a little hazy in the sense that DEF is not an indication of how durable the monster is, whereas in Magic, Toughness is an indication of how much damage a creature can take before it dies, and it's separate from Power, which determines how much damage the creature can inflict. Monsters in Yugioh compare the force of two "attacking" monsters (ATK position) and the one with less force dies, with DEF only a factor if it was in DEF position.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

The Zero ATK rule is actually a rule in itself that was thankfully added to rulebooks because I dont think it had been documented officially before that.

 

The reason I'm not giving you a straight answer is because other cards that prevent Battle Damage or turn Battle Damage to 0 only affect players taking damage, and monsters will still be destroyed by battle. The original card that made this confusing was Waboku, which has been errata'd.

 

So, in a strictly technical sense, monsters are not destroyed from battle damage. They are destroyed by battle. Battle Damage is the concept of how much damage a monster is capable of inflicting to a player simply by battling. Zero ATK is a separate rule justifying why a monster with no attack force behind its battle cannot destroy anything, even if it battles a monster with equal ATK.

 

Yugioh makes the logic a little hazy in the sense that DEF is not an indication of how durable the monster is, whereas in Magic, Toughness is an indication of how much damage a creature can take before it dies, and it's separate from Power, which determines how much damage the creature can inflict. Monsters in Yugioh compare the force of two "attacking" monsters (ATK position) and the one with less force dies, with DEF only a factor if it was in DEF position.

From what I can tell, cards that deal with battle damage in that way always indicate "you" or say "players", making the distinction quite obvious.

[evilfusion]

From what I can tell, cards that deal with battle damage in that way always indicate "you" or say "players", making the distinction quite obvious.

 

That's correct. There aren't any cards that prevent battle damage to monsters. Those that do, simply say the monster can't be destroyed by battle.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking, though. What circumstances would you need to specify whether Battle Damage occurs to monsters? Either the monster cannot be destroyed by battle (but Battle Damage is still inflicted to players) or Battle Damage becomes 0 (but monsters still are destroyed by battle). Waboku does both.

[Zeppeli Gyro Supreme]

I really just want to confirm this on principal, because all of these people I keep telling that monsters take battle damage think I'm crazy. It was from a discussion about Waboku on a video.

[evilfusion]

I really just want to confirm this on principal, because all of these people I keep telling that monsters take battle damage think I'm crazy. It was from a discussion about Waboku on a video.

 

That's because according to game mechanics and current terminology, monsters don't take battle damage. They either die or they don't, and players take Battle Damage based on the battling monsters' respective ATK or DEF relative to their positions when battling each other. There's no point in arguing whether monsters take battle damage, or insisting one way or the other.

 

If you dissect the mechanics to their very core...Battle doesn't even care about "damaging" the other monster. The one with more attack force is unscathed by battling and the lesser attack force is slain by the first. It's an absolute. Either the battling monster dies by battle, or it does not. There's no partial damage, there's either alive or dead.

 

With DEF, it at least makes sense. If you attack a wall, and the wall is too hard to break, it hurts the attacker. But neither die. If you attack a wall and it's weaker than you, the wall breaks and you don't.

[Zazubat]

Machina Fortress is being targeted by Evilswarm Bahamut, is it possible to discard his only option, or is it too late?

[Miror B]

Machina Fortress is being targeted by Evilswarm Bahamut, is it possible to discard his only option, or is it too late?

Since discarding for Bahamut is at resolution, and Fortress says to discard before resolution, yes it is very possible.

[Phantasy Dreamz]

When I summon a monster, and it's effect activates when it's summoned

-ex: Summoner Monk

 

Do I miss the timing of a monster effect that activates when a monster is summoned?

-ex: Kagetokage

 

If not, then which monster's effect is activated first?

[Cute Rotten Yoshika]

When I summon a monster, and it's effect activates when it's summoned

-ex: Summoner Monk

 

Do I miss the timing of a monster effect that activates when a monster is summoned?

-ex: Kagetokage

 

If not, then which monster's effect is activated first?

 

they do not miss timing. you can activate them in any order you want, though remember to follow the rules of chaining.

[Zazubat]

Both have Trigger effect with the same conditions, so I assume that you get to use both in any order you choose.

 

Question: Can you use Hammer Shark's Level Reduce  without also Summoning? I forgot if the "and if you do" part is doing resolution only that you don't need to or not.

 

Off-Topic: I can see like 5 people reading, it's creepy...