hello, my opp attacks with his Cyber Dragon my Gearfried the Iron Knight. Then I activate (during the damage step) Blast with Chain targetting my gearfried. Would he receive 500 atk to destroy the dragon or would gearfried destroy the blast????
blast on gaerfried(again)
- Thread starter Lithium
- Start date
Simon, I'm aware you are also a level 3. Have you discussed this ruling with Kevin or Dan? Until, I see the ruling published or a change in existing rulings on the official website, I will still respectfully disagree.skey23 said:
From time to time, a number of rulings get "corrected" or changed if pointed out to Kevin or Dan. Many are not responded to, due to Konami not providing a final ruling. I'll send you private e-mail to confirm this.
doc
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
Unfortunately, the only "Official Proof" I can give is information I cannot publicly publish. Suffice it to say that several people were incorrect with their assumption that Gearfried is a Trigger Effect, and Ian explained it very well, and in person to those who needed a detailed answer.ygo doc said:
Again, you aren't chaining to his destruction effect. Gearfried can only destroy a Equip Card once it has been equipped. At that point, you are chaining Really Eternal Rest to the Equip Card being destroyed by Gearfried as that is an indication that it was equipped.
The problem with your argument, is both the ruling and you have used the word "chain". You can only chain to an appropriate spell speed effect. Summoning has no spell speed. Destruction of an equip card has no spell speed. Therefore, there can be no chain; merely the activation of "Really Eternal Rest". Unfortunately, that's not what the ruling states.masterwoo0 said:
I like others have the utmost respect for Ian Estrin and the UDE staff; however, I have found on multiple occasions that when they will give you a verbal answer but not a published official answer on their website or judge site, that their answer is "not official".
How many of us were told by official sources that "Legendary Juijitsu Master" would bounce back to the top of the deck, "Mystic Swordsman LV2"? It seems everyone was told this, but they never published a ruling. Lo and behold, they changed their ruling immediately when Shadow of Infinity was released.
doc
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
I dont recall it taking that long to rule on Jujitsu Master.ygo doc said:
D.D. Warrior Lady V. Legendary Jujitsu Master 2005-10-20 16:12:00 <Dharmish Patel>
Player A D.D. Warrior Lady attacks Player B Face down Legendary Jujitsu Master.
Question: Can Player A remove Player B Legendary Jujitsu Master before it gets its effect?
----------------------------------------------------
Answer:
"D.D. Warrior Lady's" effect is activated after damage calculation, during the "resolve effects" portion of the Damage Step.
"Legendary Jujitsu Master" returns to the attacking monster at the END of the Damage Step (as written in the text).
"D.D. Warrior Lady" will remove itself and "Legendary Jujitsu Master" from play BEFORE "Legendary Jujitsu Master" ever has its chance to return the warrior lady to the top of the owner's Deck.
---------------------------------------
Curtis Schultz
Official UDE Netrepâ„¢
CurtisSchultz_netrep@Hotmail.com
This Ruling is dated October, and states that his effect occurs at the end of the Damage Step. Attacks from Mystic Swordsman LV2 mean that the Damage Step is never entered, so how can Jujitsu Master return him to the top of the Deck?
The definition of Battle is when Damage Calculation is performed in the Damage Step.
And yes, a poor choice of words using "chain" vs "respond".
carlossilva
New Member
I still see a little problem here.
Let's say Gearfried's effect is continuous and the "chain" mentioned on the ruling was a poor choice of words. Therefore we would just be activating Really Eternal Rest, not chaining to the effect ( or to anything, for that matter ).
However, if Gearfried's effect is continuous, it should be applied as soon as conditions are met for it to apply ( shouldn't it ? ). In this case this would mean right after the equip card successfully resolves ( therefore becoming equipped to Geafried ).
Can the application of a continuous effect ( I'm avoiding the word "resolution" on purpose ) be interrupted by the activation of a card ? If it can, please give me examples. If it can't, then by the time someone would be able to activate Really Eternal Rest, the effect has been applied and Butterfly-Dagger Elma has been destroyed.
Now, if it has been destroyed, then it is no longer equipped to Gearfried. So, how can really Eternal Rest still destroy Gearfried and make it like Butterfly was destroyed by game mechanics ?
Thanks
Carlos
Let's say Gearfried's effect is continuous and the "chain" mentioned on the ruling was a poor choice of words. Therefore we would just be activating Really Eternal Rest, not chaining to the effect ( or to anything, for that matter ).
However, if Gearfried's effect is continuous, it should be applied as soon as conditions are met for it to apply ( shouldn't it ? ). In this case this would mean right after the equip card successfully resolves ( therefore becoming equipped to Geafried ).
Can the application of a continuous effect ( I'm avoiding the word "resolution" on purpose ) be interrupted by the activation of a card ? If it can, please give me examples. If it can't, then by the time someone would be able to activate Really Eternal Rest, the effect has been applied and Butterfly-Dagger Elma has been destroyed.
Now, if it has been destroyed, then it is no longer equipped to Gearfried. So, how can really Eternal Rest still destroy Gearfried and make it like Butterfly was destroyed by game mechanics ?
Thanks
Carlos
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
That's because you are looking at it as if this is a real time event, such as, you hold your hand to a open flame, you feel the intense heat from the fire, and receive a burn for your effort.carlossilva said:
Is it fair to say that "If you touch a flame, you will only feel the heat, or, you will only get burned". All of the above will happen.
If you attempt to equip Gearfried, whatever Equip Card you use MUST equip before it can be destroyed. If you respond to Gearfried being equipped, Gearfried CANNOT resolve his effect simultaneously while another effect is attempting to activate, and must wait to resolve inbetween Chain Links.
P1 plays Butterfly Dagger - Elma and targets Gearfried the Iron knight.
P2 does not respond
RESOLVE
Butterfly Dagger - Elma equips to Jinzo
P2 activates Really Eternal Rest
Gearfried the iron knight destroys butterfly dagger - elma
Really eternal rest destroys Gearfried the iron knight.
carlossilva
New Member
But does a continuous effect actually resolve, or is it just applied?
If a condition has been met for it to apply, can you even try to activate another effect inbetween?
And besides, let's analyze the flow of effects/events:
No issues up to here. But, at this point, no chain is resolving and a card has been successfully equipped to Gearfried, therefore meeting the requirement for his continuous effect to apply. If it is indeed a continuous effect, why wouldn't it apply right now? Why would it have to wait for someone to even attempt to activate a different effect ?
In all examples I've seen, continuous effects are immediately applied and don't wait for other effects, not even if they are trigger effects. Look at the rule for Mobius and Level limit - Area B :
[Re: Mobius the Frost Monarch] If "Level Limit - Area B" is active and "Mobius the Frost Monarch" is successfully Tribute Summoned, "Level Limit - Area B" is a Continuous Spell Card so its effect is applied and the battle position of "Mobius the Frost Monarch" is changed to Defense Position. Then you can activate the effect of "Mobius the Frost Monarch".
So, how exactly is this different?
Thanks
Carlos
The only problem I'm having understanding is what exactly we are responding to in the ruling.
Obviously we are not chaining to Butterfly Dagger - Elma's activation, or Gearfried wouldn't be destroyed. He wouldn't be considered equipped until the Equip Card was allowed to resolves. So scratch that.
If were only responding, and 'chain' was an inappropriate choice of words, then suppose we are responding (being that we should technically be able to respond to any resolved event in the game without chaining) to the Equip Card being successfully equipped. Since Gearfired is a Continuous Effect with a event based application, and not like Jinzo, then we must be responding to the the Equip Card being equipped before the Continuous Effect can apply. Is that we are saying here? Are we saying that since neither the equipping, nor the application of the Continuous Effect use the chain, that we can respond to one event, before the other event, although Continuous, can apply?
Obviously we are not chaining to Butterfly Dagger - Elma's activation, or Gearfried wouldn't be destroyed. He wouldn't be considered equipped until the Equip Card was allowed to resolves. So scratch that.
If were only responding, and 'chain' was an inappropriate choice of words, then suppose we are responding (being that we should technically be able to respond to any resolved event in the game without chaining) to the Equip Card being successfully equipped. Since Gearfired is a Continuous Effect with a event based application, and not like Jinzo, then we must be responding to the the Equip Card being equipped before the Continuous Effect can apply. Is that we are saying here? Are we saying that since neither the equipping, nor the application of the Continuous Effect use the chain, that we can respond to one event, before the other event, although Continuous, can apply?
carlossilva
New Member
Digital Jedi said:
Precisely what I was trying to point out in my previous post, and if this is indeed the case, I'd sure like to see some support/examples of this mechanics applied.
Carlos
I'm so glad someone understands game mechanics here.
There is no way to ever activate "Really Eternal Rest" if "Gearfried the Iron Knight's" effect is continuous. So, either the ruling is WRONG or it is as I and others have been telling you: "Gearfried's" effect is a trigger effect! If you don't believe me, please e-mail Ian Estrin or any UDE official.
Continuous effects do not go on chain, nor can their continuous effect be interrupted by any other spell speed effect. Continuous effects are applied first, then trigger effects.
When "Command Knight" is summoned to the Field, she immediately boosts her ATK from 1200 to 1600. A face-up "King Tiger Wanghu" never gets the opportunity to destroy her when her ATK is only 1200 because you can't interrupt her continuous effect and continuous effects are resolved first before any other effects! "King Tiger Wanghu" cannot interrupt "Command Knight's" continuous effect and destroy her when she is at 1200 ATK! Nor can "Really Eternal Rest" interrupt "Gearfried's" destruction effect if it is continuous. HOWEVER, "Really Eternal Rest" can be CHAINED if "Gearfried's" effect is a trigger effect!
doc
There is no way to ever activate "Really Eternal Rest" if "Gearfried the Iron Knight's" effect is continuous. So, either the ruling is WRONG or it is as I and others have been telling you: "Gearfried's" effect is a trigger effect! If you don't believe me, please e-mail Ian Estrin or any UDE official.
Continuous effects do not go on chain, nor can their continuous effect be interrupted by any other spell speed effect. Continuous effects are applied first, then trigger effects.
When "Command Knight" is summoned to the Field, she immediately boosts her ATK from 1200 to 1600. A face-up "King Tiger Wanghu" never gets the opportunity to destroy her when her ATK is only 1200 because you can't interrupt her continuous effect and continuous effects are resolved first before any other effects! "King Tiger Wanghu" cannot interrupt "Command Knight's" continuous effect and destroy her when she is at 1200 ATK! Nor can "Really Eternal Rest" interrupt "Gearfried's" destruction effect if it is continuous. HOWEVER, "Really Eternal Rest" can be CHAINED if "Gearfried's" effect is a trigger effect!
doc
Well, let's bear in mind here, that even Continuous Effects can be event driven. I have no reason to think that Materwoo0 and Skey23 are both misremembering a instance of being told that his effect is Continuous. Aside from that, this wouldn't be the first time that a ruling has been glaringly incorrect, as we have had several discussions about the Skill Drain ruling that blatantly states that Exiled Force is a Graveyard activated effect, even though it's been officially ruled as a field effect, and should be ruled as such in tournament play.
It's a little early to insist either way the status of Gearfried the Iron Knight's effect, if we have it from reputable sources that it's Continuous. Remember that this game is very shaky when making these determinations. There's a precarious balance between what's in print and what we're being verbally instructed to do. AT this point, whether it mechanically makes no sense, we still have largely more credible information that the effect is in fact Continuous. Mechanics mean little in this game, when instructions from up above can shape them to their whim. We've seen this far too often to not know that's true.
Even so, there is still some small room here for the mechanics to be sound, which is what I was getting at. While the use of the word "chain" was inappropriate, if what the ruling was supposed to say was "respond", then what were looking at here is a case of event timing. We'd be responding the resolution of an Equip Card, before the application of a Continuous Effect. We have rulings that say Continuous Effects insert themselves between links of a chain, but nothing that say they interrupt response timing, as far as I know.
And aside from all of that, this ruling is horribly horribly written. It says "When "Butterfly Dagger - Elma" is destroyed by "Gearfried the Iron Knight"'s effect..." you can activate really eternal rest. This far far too late to activate Really Eternal Rest "when "Butterfly Dagger - Elma" is destroyed" in an attempt to destroy Gearfried, as Elma is already in the Graveyard. Clearly, this is such a poorly written ruling, that we really can't base much off of it one way or another.
It's a little early to insist either way the status of Gearfried the Iron Knight's effect, if we have it from reputable sources that it's Continuous. Remember that this game is very shaky when making these determinations. There's a precarious balance between what's in print and what we're being verbally instructed to do. AT this point, whether it mechanically makes no sense, we still have largely more credible information that the effect is in fact Continuous. Mechanics mean little in this game, when instructions from up above can shape them to their whim. We've seen this far too often to not know that's true.
Even so, there is still some small room here for the mechanics to be sound, which is what I was getting at. While the use of the word "chain" was inappropriate, if what the ruling was supposed to say was "respond", then what were looking at here is a case of event timing. We'd be responding the resolution of an Equip Card, before the application of a Continuous Effect. We have rulings that say Continuous Effects insert themselves between links of a chain, but nothing that say they interrupt response timing, as far as I know.
And aside from all of that, this ruling is horribly horribly written. It says "When "Butterfly Dagger - Elma" is destroyed by "Gearfried the Iron Knight"'s effect..." you can activate really eternal rest. This far far too late to activate Really Eternal Rest "when "Butterfly Dagger - Elma" is destroyed" in an attempt to destroy Gearfried, as Elma is already in the Graveyard. Clearly, this is such a poorly written ruling, that we really can't base much off of it one way or another.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
I've already stated that I watched Ian Estrin's lips move in person, as he communicated to two rather disappointed Judges that Gearfried the Iron Knight was a Continuous Effect. This is not "hearsay" or "I thought he said...."
Just to clarify a point. I very much believe that Skey23 and masterwoo0 were told by Ian Estrin that "Gearfried's" effect is continuous. This is not in contention. The fact is, Ian Estrin was in error here, OR there are a number of wrong rulings posted on UDE's website. I believe it is the former.
I am doing some background research here, and as those duelists above know, some of the information cannot be freely posted here. I will let you know the results if and when I hear from UDE.
As for rendering different rulings from those published on UDE's website, that would be a major mistake for any high level judge at a high level event or really for any judge at any level event. Despite how you might interpret rules and card mechanics, you must first abide by what UDE has posted either on their website or the judge list. Sometimes there are errors, and UDE does eventually fix them (reference "Dark Necrofear"). Unless you are the Head Judge (which I am often) or you have previously consulted with the Head Judge to disregard a ruling, I would strongly advise you NOT to rule against official published rulings. When a rulings question has a specific published ruling and you have knowledge of that, you need to rule in accordance with the published ruling.
As an L3 judge I am first and foremost an advocate of the game; however, I also bear additional duties and responsibilities. For me that means I don't always agree with certain UDE rulings or policies, but I will help to enforce or implement them. If you are going to rule in regards to your own dissenting personal opinion(s), I believe you are doing a disservice to the game.
doc
I am doing some background research here, and as those duelists above know, some of the information cannot be freely posted here. I will let you know the results if and when I hear from UDE.
As for rendering different rulings from those published on UDE's website, that would be a major mistake for any high level judge at a high level event or really for any judge at any level event. Despite how you might interpret rules and card mechanics, you must first abide by what UDE has posted either on their website or the judge list. Sometimes there are errors, and UDE does eventually fix them (reference "Dark Necrofear"). Unless you are the Head Judge (which I am often) or you have previously consulted with the Head Judge to disregard a ruling, I would strongly advise you NOT to rule against official published rulings. When a rulings question has a specific published ruling and you have knowledge of that, you need to rule in accordance with the published ruling.
As an L3 judge I am first and foremost an advocate of the game; however, I also bear additional duties and responsibilities. For me that means I don't always agree with certain UDE rulings or policies, but I will help to enforce or implement them. If you are going to rule in regards to your own dissenting personal opinion(s), I believe you are doing a disservice to the game.
doc
Let me point out, however, that I never suggested that we disregard rulings or render them different from what's published. What I was pointing out, was that there are a number of rulings which blatantly contradict each other. You can't enforce one while enforcing the other. You can't enforce one without violating the other. That is a no win situation that I personally think a TCG should take great pains to keep out of their documentation, but I digress. The point is that we cannot presume we understand a ruling when a ruling is clearly not worded properly and/or in contradiction of existing documentation. This ruling is not worded properly. The timing of the statements are all off. Trigger or no, you wouldn't be able to destroy Gearfried if he's not equipped. Poorly worded rulings are difficult to enforce without clarifications from the only official sources we have.
Yes, Ian's been wrong before. So has Kevin and Dan and a good number of posts in the past on the Judges List. So has the FAQ. I bet each of us can point to a ruling that desperately needs to be taken off the books. This game is all about extrapolation. You guys aren't be expected to be mind readers, but a lot of times, that's the position you've been put in.
I never suggested that we ignore existing documentation because of our own personal interpretations of the rulings. On the contrary, I'm suggesting that we reconsider our interpretations of the rulings based on existing documentation and by the word of the people in charge. The ruling is definitely not correctly written, so that leaves us with the instructions given to us from Konami through UDE and trickled on down from you guys, the LV3s. This has been standard practice for years, and while I don't consider it the greatest set up, it's all we've got.
Yes, Ian's been wrong before. So has Kevin and Dan and a good number of posts in the past on the Judges List. So has the FAQ. I bet each of us can point to a ruling that desperately needs to be taken off the books. This game is all about extrapolation. You guys aren't be expected to be mind readers, but a lot of times, that's the position you've been put in.
I never suggested that we ignore existing documentation because of our own personal interpretations of the rulings. On the contrary, I'm suggesting that we reconsider our interpretations of the rulings based on existing documentation and by the word of the people in charge. The ruling is definitely not correctly written, so that leaves us with the instructions given to us from Konami through UDE and trickled on down from you guys, the LV3s. This has been standard practice for years, and while I don't consider it the greatest set up, it's all we've got.
soulwarrior
New Member
Ah, I remember this one. I brought it up on the Level 3 list a while ago, but like so many other conversations, it just ended up in nothing... 
This ruling seems to be wrong. Obviously. Every other ruling indicates that Gearfried's effect is continuous. This ruling:
If you equip Gearfried with Snatch Steal, Snatch Steal is destroyed immediately and its effect does not resolve, so Gearfried never actually switches sides. Therefore you cannot equip Gearfried with Snatch Steal and control him long enough to use Altar for Tribute, Cannon Soldier, etc., because you never gain control of Gearfried.
clearly states that the effect does NOT go on the chain, otherwise, you could simply chain Altar for Tribute after Gearfried's effect started the chain. And Gearfried's effect would trigger after Snatch Steal resolved.
So I agree to everyone else who said that Gearfried is continuous. Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. ^^
soul
This ruling seems to be wrong. Obviously. Every other ruling indicates that Gearfried's effect is continuous. This ruling:
If you equip Gearfried with Snatch Steal, Snatch Steal is destroyed immediately and its effect does not resolve, so Gearfried never actually switches sides. Therefore you cannot equip Gearfried with Snatch Steal and control him long enough to use Altar for Tribute, Cannon Soldier, etc., because you never gain control of Gearfried.
clearly states that the effect does NOT go on the chain, otherwise, you could simply chain Altar for Tribute after Gearfried's effect started the chain. And Gearfried's effect would trigger after Snatch Steal resolved.
So I agree to everyone else who said that Gearfried is continuous. Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread, I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. ^^
soul
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
It's not a ruling. It's what he is stating should happen with Snatch Steal, although Snatch Steal is not "immediately" destroyed until it is considered "equipped", as Gearfried can only destroy Equipped Cards, not Equip Cards.Entropy said:
...and yet there is no actual ruling that specifically states that Gearfried's effect is indeed a true "Trigger"... only an obscure ruling involving Butterfly Dagger that may or may not point in that direction.
Last i remember the JERP states that it is a Trigger, but Gearfried has changed a few times.
It would be nice to get actual official conformation.
Since that is the case here, there is no disservice by ruling it as Continuous.
...and no the Judge's List, the LV3 List, or this forum or any other forum, is not Official print.
Last i remember the JERP states that it is a Trigger, but Gearfried has changed a few times.
It would be nice to get actual official conformation.
Unless something "Official" is in print, you actually have the right to judge it either way.
Since that is the case here, there is no disservice by ruling it as Continuous.
...and no the Judge's List, the LV3 List, or this forum or any other forum, is not Official print.
DaGuyWitBluGlasses
New Member
www.yugioh-card.com says:
Q) It moves the "chain equipped bomb" after the Q. chain 2, makes "horseman gear [hurido] of the iron equip and" when it destroys, it moves the effect of that "chain equipped bomb" with some timing?
A) "The chain equipped bomb (the chain being attached dynamite)" it is destroyed in the middle which the chain processes the A. when plural effects, the effect of that "chain equipped bomb" moves after consecutive chain processing ends, again, is placed on chain 1.
Q) It moves the "chain equipped bomb" after the Q. chain 2, makes "horseman gear [hurido] of the iron equip and" when it destroys, it moves the effect of that "chain equipped bomb" with some timing?
A) "The chain equipped bomb (the chain being attached dynamite)" it is destroyed in the middle which the chain processes the A. when plural effects, the effect of that "chain equipped bomb" moves after consecutive chain processing ends, again, is placed on chain 1.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
Does that come with an instruction manual?? I bet that's equally difficult to translate!! lol