Jump to content

Yu-Gi-Oh! Rulings Questions


Recommended Posts

So you know how you could chain 2+ card effects directing to a summon

-ex:

----Player A Normal Summons

----Player B Torrential

----Player A Starlight, but not summoning Stardust

----Player B Bottomless

 

What if Player A Summons Stardust from Starlight's effect

Does that end the chain for the Normal Summon,

Or was Stardust summoned in the chain and Player B's Bottomless will still target the Normal Summoned monster?

Or Player B isn't able to activate Bottomless at all?

I'm somewhat confuse on what you're asking, though I will answer what I think your question is. You ask if you are able to still use Bottomless Trap Hole after your opponent Chains Stardust? Yes, you could do that, and if you do, only that Normal Summoned monster would be affected. If you choose to use Bottomless after Starlight the full Chain has resolved, you will now only hit Stardust Dragon. If that's not what you're asking, then I got no idea what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 16.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So you know how you could chain 2+ card effects directing to a summon

-ex:

----Player A Normal Summons

----Player B Torrential

----Player A Starlight, but not summoning Stardust

----Player B Bottomless

 

What if Player A Summons Stardust from Starlight's effect

Does that end the chain for the Normal Summon,

Or was Stardust summoned in the chain and Player B's Bottomless will still target the Normal Summoned monster?

Or Player B isn't able to activate Bottomless at all?

You do not summon Stardust until Starlight Road resolves. It does not interfere with the timing at all in this case. You can still chain Bottomless to Starlight in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ohhhh, thank you.

An easy way to see that something happens at resolution (when the Chain resolves from the last card being activated to the first card that was activated) is to check for Semi-Colons. Anything after that happens at resolution. If the card doesn't have a semi-colon, then everything happens have the Colon. If the card doesn't have either, then it's a Continuous Effect (except for some Spell/Traps, as when you activat a S/T card, that also starts a Chain).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruling of Forbidden Dress

 

Dress' effect has no negation to effects that targets the targeted monster

Rather, it prohibits

So if a monster is already targeted by a card effect

And Dress chain to target that same monster

Dress' effect will only be in effective after the chain resolves, right?

 

Since that monster was already targeted before Dress was activated.

 

Or does Dress resolve first, as a chain link 2

And whatever targets the targeted monster just loose it's target?

(o.O)

 

The Effect of Forbidden Dress prevents targeting, but cannot do anything if the card already targeted the monster.

 

If you have sunscreen (Forbidden Dress) and you apply it after you got sunburned (Targeted), its not going to prevent you from getting sunburn (Targeted) as you are already sunburned (Targeted).  Apply sunscreen (Forbidden Dress) before you go outside and you will not get sunburned (targeted).

 

But yeah, as I said, chaining Forbidden Dress to something that targeted your monster will do nothing to stop the targeting part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Effect of Forbidden Dress prevents targeting, but cannot do anything if the card already targeted the monster.

 

If you have sunscreen (Forbidden Dress) and you apply it after you got sunburned (Targeted), its not going to prevent you from getting sunburn (Targeted) as you are already sunburned (Targeted).  Apply sunscreen (Forbidden Dress) before you go outside and you will not get sunburned (targeted).

I think that's the best analogy I have ever seen xD

 

OP: If I control Archfiend General and Dimise of the Land is used, but the new Fiend Spell is also Pandemonium, will General be destroyed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LEGAL - Anti Fragrance Spell + Dark Simorgh = prohibits opponent setting spells due to Simorgh

 

ILLEGAL- Morphing Jar + Protector of the Sanctuary = prohibits opponent drawing due to Protector

 

What's the ruling that one of this combo is legal and the other is not?

I mean, they do have the same concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LEGAL - Anti Fragrance Spell + Dark Simorgh = prohibits opponent setting spells due to Simorgh

 

ILLEGAL- Morphing Jar + Protector of the Sanctuary = prohibits opponent drawing due to Protector

 

What's the ruling that one of this combo is legal and the other is not?

I mean, they do have the same concept.

I think you got something mixed up, Morphing Jar is legal with PoS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you got something mixed up, Morphing Jar is legal with PoS

WTHeck

People told me that combo is declared by Konami as Illegal

Meaning Protector's effect will not override Morphing's.

 

 

You're telling me, If I flip my Morphing while I control Protector

It will dump my opponent's hand, and they draw none while I draw 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTHeck

People told me that combo is declared by Konami as Illegal

Meaning Protector's effect will not override Morphing's.

 

 

You're telling me, If I flip my Morphing while I control Protector

It will dump my opponent's hand, and they draw none while I draw 5?

Yup, it's legel as it's mandatory. If you had to do it for a cost, then you wouldn't be able to. Things that are not legal are typically only unrepairable gamestates, where two cards keep going back and foward. This would simply dump your opponent cards, and continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LEGAL - Anti Fragrance Spell + Dark Simorgh = prohibits opponent setting spells due to Simorgh

 

ILLEGAL- Morphing Jar + Protector of the Sanctuary = prohibits opponent drawing due to Protector

 

What's the ruling that one of this combo is legal and the other is not?

I mean, they do have the same concept.

 

Morphing Jar is a mandatory flip effect.  It must activate and perform what it can.  The hands will be discarded, and the opponent of PotS will not draw cards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repost: If I control Archfiend General and Dimise of the Land is used, but the new Fiend Spell is also Pandemonium, will General be destroyed?

 

If you're activating Demise of the Land and you control Pandemonium, in order for you to activate another Pandemonium, you'll have to destroy the one already in your FIeld Spell Card Zone before the new one can be placed.  When that happens, there wouldn't be any Pandemoniums on the field and Archfiend General will destroy itself.

 

If your opponent controls Pandemonium and you're activating Demise of the Land to retrieve your own Pandemonium, when your Pandemonium is placed onto your Field Spell Zone, there will be 2 Pandemoniums face-up on the field, then your opponent's is destroyed, thereby leaving 1 on the field, never causing 0 Pandemoniums to be on the field and in this case it wouldn't be destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I mean less than 1500ATK

Well, can I Inferno it if it was SS by a card effect?

Was it special summoned?

Yes?

then yes you can. Inferno only cares that the monster ws SS'd, it has 1500 or less attack and that the oppponent has a monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have Chaos Hunter on the field

My opponent has Macro already activated on the field

 

Does Macro still banish my cards?

 

Anything that states it cannot happen will override anything that could happen.

 

Chaos Hunter states it cannot happen.  Chaos Hunter > Macro.

 

Edit: I should clarify - Since its your opponent's Macro, it is his card that's banishing.  Neither player will banish cards for his Macro Cosmos, not just you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have a theoretical card that is a Normal Trap Negate Attack, and I chain Compulsory Evacuation Device to return the attacking monster to my hand, is its attack still negated and is the Battle Phase still ended?

If you use the same wording as Negate Attack, then no. You see, it uses the word "and". If a card does that, then you must do both, otherwise you do nothing. Though it seems to be pre PSCT, so I could be wrong here.

 

Could you give me an example of the card? It shouldn't use the wording Negate Attack has, as it's old, and if you happened to change anything, it could be very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...