Yu-Gi-Oh! Rulings Questions

[darkwolf777]

I Normal Summon my Wind-Up Shark, my opponent attempts to Solemn Warning it, I Solemn Judge it. Chain ends. Can I activate my Wind-Up Shark from the hand at this moment, or is it too late?

 

The timing for negating a summon and a response for a successful summon are two different timings.  If the summon is successful, then that's that.  Sure you can activate Wind-Up Shark

[.codex]

The timing for negating a summon and a response for a successful summon are two different timings.  If the summon is successful, then that's that.  Sure you can activate Wind-Up Shark

Alright. My opponent argues about me not being able to Special Summon 2 Wind-Up Sharks in the same chain. Is this true?

[Zazubat]

Alright. My opponent argues about me not being able to Special Summon 2 Wind-Up Sharks in the same chain. Is this true?

I think he might be right about that. There's a ruling about not being able to activate 2 Gorz in the hand at the same time iirc, so that should apply to this as well right?

[darkwolf777]

Alright. My opponent argues about me not being able to Special Summon 2 Wind-Up Sharks in the same chain. Is this true?

 

When you summon a Wind-Up monster and you have more than one Wind-Up Shark in your hand, you can only activate one of those Wind-Up Sharks in response to that summon.

 

There's nothing stopping you from activating the second Wind-Up Shark in response to the Special Summon of the first Wind-Up Shark.

[Miror B]

Alright. My opponent argues about me not being able to Special Summon 2 Wind-Up Sharks in the same chain. Is this true?

The rule is that you can only have 1 Trigger Effect that would Special Summon a monster per chain, so yes. Only exception to date is Infernity Archfiend for no particular reason at all.

[Mysty]

The rule is that you can only have 1 Trigger Effect that would Special Summon a monster per chain, so yes. Only exception to date is Infernity Archfiend for no particular reason at all.

 

I thought the reason was that you can only have one trigger effect from the hand or Deck per chain. I'm pretty sure you can multiple two Infernity Avengers in one chain.

 

Still doesn't make sense for Archfiend, though.

[Zazubat]

 

I thought the reason was that you can only have one trigger effect from the hand or Deck per chain. I'm pretty sure you can multiple two Infernity Avengers in one chain.

 

Still doesn't make sense for Archfiend, though.

The only reason I could see it being different is because you reveal it. I think there justification for it is that you reveal it, meaning that you cannot cheat and use multiple effects in the hand when you only have 1 card. I dunno if it works the same as how it would for cards that do not Summon themselves, but that would make at least a tiny bit of sense. It's still weird though.

[Miror B]

 

I thought the reason was that you can only have one trigger effect from the hand or Deck per chain. I'm pretty sure you can multiple two Infernity Avengers in one chain.

 

Still doesn't make sense for Archfiend, though.

Forgot to say hand. My bad.

 

And ARchfiend is just there. It's never made sense, it was just the ruling given.

 

The only reason I could see it being different is because you reveal it. I think there justification for it is that you reveal it, meaning that you cannot cheat and use multiple effects in the hand when you only have 1 card. I dunno if it works the same as how it would for cards that do not Summon themselves, but that would make at least a tiny bit of sense. It's still weird though.

You reveal cards like Gorz and Trag too though.

[Zazubat]

You reveal cards like Gorz and Trag too though.

What do you mean? No you don't. Of course when you activate you need to show and all, but that's not considered revealing. Archfiend actually says reveal. But again, that could totaly not be the reason, but it's the only one that I can come to a logical meaning with.

[Miror B]

What do you mean? No you don't. Of course when you activate you need to show and all, but that's not considered revealing. Archfiend actually says reveal. But again, that could totaly not be the reason, but it's the only one that I can come to a logical meaning with.

If you don't reveal it how do you show it?

Archfiend may say to reveal it but an effect activating in the hand always requires you to reveal the card you're activating.

[Zazubat]

The difference is that revealing a card is a game mechanic, showing it to your opponent saying that you wish to activate that card's effect is different. This is why you cannot use Archfiend if your hand is already revealed, but you can use Gorz as that doesn't say you have to reveal it, but you still will because you need to do as such to confirm you have the card.

[Bringerofcake]

So does Scramble!! Scramble!! require that you control a non-Token monster in order to activate it?

[evilfusion]

So does Scramble!! Scramble!! require that you control a non-Token monster in order to activate it?

 

No. Your opponent just has to control more monsters than you control non-Token monsters. If they have 1 and you have 0, their monsters outnumber yours, and you can use Scramble!!

[-Berserker-]

If I use Soul Exchange in two different opponent monsters, and have nothing that can tribute both at the same time, then I cannot tribute either?

[Zazubat]

I thought that if there're multiple targets, then if 1 of those targets is not correct at resolution anymore, then nothing would happen. Is this wrong? I saw Crystal Blessing and Salvage's Rulings, and they seem to say as such. I would like to know which wordings would stop the effect from happening, and which will let it continue.

I thought that if it was worded like this: "Target 2 face-up monsters your opponent controls; banish those targets." then you would need to be able to banish both for anything to happen, and I thought that if it was worded like this: "Target 2 face-up monsters your opponent controls; banish those cards" then you they would not need to be face-up anymore to resolve properly.

EDIT 1:
 

Also let's say that The Huge Revolution is Over is a Normal Trap instead, then if I chain Mystical Space Typhoon, and destroy it, then it's sent to the Graveyard. It would still banish it right? As the card says "it". Isn't that how it works? I'm really confused about this. I can't seem to find good clearification on how this works.

 

EDIT 2:

Reading on Nobleman of Crossout, that says target, and it must still target that face-down. Reading on Monster Reborn, it must still target the card in the Graveyard. So, there's no cards which apply even if the card is no longer correct? I thought there was, and when are they?

[.codex]

If I return my Special Summoned Fallen Angel of Roses to Summmon Fallen Angel of Roses, will it be banished?

[Eury]

If you normal summon and same turn that monster is sent to Grave (ex: Galaxy Wizard eff), can you still activate Accellight after? 

[Zazubat]

If you normal summon and same turn that monster is sent to Grave (ex: Galaxy Wizard eff), can you still activate Accellight after? 

No. It doesn't matter if it's on the moon, if you preformed a Normal Summon, then you can't activate that card. The same with Pot of Duality, you cannot Summon before, after, or anytime that turn.

[darkwolf777]

If I return my Special Summoned Fallen Angel of Roses to Summmon Fallen Angel of Roses, will it be banished?

 

I don't know what you're asking.  You cannot use Fallen Angel of Roses to Special Summon another Fallen Angel of Roses with its Special Summon condition, as written on the card: "except Fallen Angel of Roses".

[.codex]

I don't know what you're asking.  You cannot use Fallen Angel of Roses to Special Summon another Fallen Angel of Roses with its Special Summon condition, as written on the card: "except Fallen Angel of Roses".

oh my fault. Let's just go to the land of make-believe and say you could. Would it then be banished?

[darkwolf777]

If I use Soul Exchange in two different opponent monsters, and have nothing that can tribute both at the same time, then I cannot tribute either?

 

You can still Tribute only one of them.  You simply must Tribute one of the two.

 

 

oh my fault. Let's just go to the land of make-believe and say you could. Would it then be banished?

 

If that wasn't there, then the answer would be: You cannot perform the Summon of the Fallen Angel of Roses in the hand using the Fallen Angel of Roses summoned by its effect on the field because you cannot return the one on the field to your hand.

 

Also let's say that The Huge Revolution is Over is a Normal Trap instead, then if I chain Mystical Space Typhoon, and destroy it, then it's sent to the Graveyard. It would still banish it right? As the card says "it". Isn't that how it works? I'm really confused about this. I can't seem to find good clearification on how this works.

 

Reading on Nobleman of Crossout, that says target, and it must still target that face-down. Reading on Monster Reborn, it must still target the card in the Graveyard. So, there's no cards which apply even if the card is no longer correct? I thought there was, and when are they?

 

1) The Huge Revolution is Over would stay in the Graveyard.

 

2) Any card that explicitly doesn't say target in its effect text (in PSCT).  Obviously Monster Reborn wont work if the monster it targeted is no longer there.  There's probably plenty of cards out there to list and none I really feel like looking up =/

[Zazubat]

1) The Huge Revolution is Over would stay in the Graveyard.

 

2) Any card that explicitly doesn't say target in its effect text (in PSCT).  Obviously Monster Reborn wont work if the monster it targeted is no longer there.  There's probably plenty of cards out there to list and none I really feel like looking up =/

So there's no difference at all if it says "target" instead of "it" and "those cards" instead of "those targets".

[darkwolf777]

So there's no difference at all if it says "target" instead of "it" and "those cards" instead of "those targets".

 

Well the only card you mentioned was Monster Reborn.  Monster Reborn only has one effect and one target (whose target is "a card in the Graveyard").  Its not like there are many ways to change a "target in the Graveyard".  The card is either in the Graveyard or not.  Its not a good example of a card to tell you whether it makes a difference or not.

[Zazubat]

I thought that if there're multiple targets, then if 1 of those targets is not correct at resolution anymore, then nothing would happen. Is this wrong? I saw Crystal Blessing and Salvage's Rulings, and they seem to say as such. I would like to know which wordings would stop the effect from happening, and which will let it continue

I mentioned those 2.

 

I thought that if it was worded like this: "Target 2 face-up monsters your opponent controls; banish those targets." then you would need to be able to banish both for anything to happen, and I thought that if it was worded like this: "Target 2 face-up monsters your opponent controls; banish those cards" then you they would not need to be face-up anymore to resolve properly.

I also mentioned a custom example.

[darkwolf777]

I mentioned those 2.

 

I also mentioned a custom example.

 

For Salvage and Crystal Blessing, either Konami's wrong in its PSCT (which there are many that are) or the Graveyard has different rules for it.  Either way, to avoid confusion, they should just say "those cards".  It does make a difference in many cards whether it says "targets" or "those cards", but at the same time such cards that I can think of only apply to those on the field.