A very interesting Dimension Wall ruling..

T

Tkwiget

Da Twiggy Man!
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=9079

I got that in my thread that I announced that I passed my L2 test.

Very interesting. It seems to be the only card that redirects battle damage that I can think of. Either that or Curtis is wrong.

I think the mechanical reason of why Dimension Wall does Battle Damage instead of Effect Damage is because the effect can't be chained to. This would explain why you can't activate Barrel Behind the Door. However, Barrel Behind the Door can only activate directly in a chain to cards that will do immediate Effect Damage.

Thoughts from you guys on this ruling?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
John, you are confusing what a card effect and redirecting Battle Damage is. Just because Dimensional Wall is a card, whose effect has it where the opponent takes damage does not make it damage from a card effect (like Magic Cylinder). I was never confused ever about this card.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Damage from a card effect, isn't necessarily the same as Effect Damage. That's what John is getting at. Apparently a few people viewed it this way, it just seems more logical that the intent of the card was to absorb Effect Damage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Damage from a card effect, isn't necessarily the same as Effect Damage. That's what John is getting at. Apparently a few people viewed it this way, it just seems more logical that the intent of the card was to absorb Effect Damage.
Click to expand...

Either way, the battle damage is from the battle, not from Dimension Wall.

(A card that would be activated in Step 5 or 6 of the damage step doing something involving battle damage, on the otherhand might be a future possibility to nitpick about card texts.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Damage from a card effect, isn't necessarily the same as Effect Damage. That's what John is getting at. Apparently a few people viewed it this way, it just seems more logical that the intent of the card was to absorb Effect Damage.
Click to expand...

I agree that the wording should have been a little more specific. One could argue that spell cards like Hammer Shot or Smashing Grounds can't destroy Des Wombat or another card because that would be "damage" to the controller and as such, would not allow the monster(s) to be destroyed. I don't play that way but couldn't there be an argument made for such?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
skey23 said:
Umm..no. There is no Life Point damage involved with those cards. That is what "Des Wombat" is protecting.
Click to expand...

I understand that and I agree that Des Wombat's intention was to protect life point damage but the text simply states damage from card effects. It doesn't say anything about protecting life point damage from card effects. It should have been worded more specific to it's intentions.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HorusMaster said:
I agree that the wording should have been a little more specific. One could argue that spell cards like Hammer Shot or Smashing Grounds can't destroy Des Wombat or another card because that would be "damage" to the controller and as such, would not allow the monster(s) to be destroyed. I don't play that way but couldn't there be an argument made for such?
Click to expand...
Hammer Shot doing damage? Well, while the definition of destroy might include damage, the action of inflicting damage is not the same as destroying.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Many of you are missing our point, no one is arguing that it redirects battle damage, we're saying the card is poorly worded and so tends to be misleading.....I can't believe that people think that the best possible text to explain Des Wombat's effect is printed on the card. <shaking head>
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top