burning land
- Thread starter Samuel
- Start date
i am cao pi
you gotta duel on
you can activate Burning Land without a field out. it's just an effect that effects cards that are there at the time of activation you don't need monsters to play Dark Hole/Raigeki.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
I'm going to assume he was too.
uke_jedi
uke_jediWell valid monster for Dark Hole and Raigeki means if a monster at all is on correct field. If I control Silent Swordsman LV5, I have a valid monster to activate Dark Hole with. It's unaffected by Spells, however Dark Hole and Raigeki require the field(s) they are affected to have a monster on it. As long as a monster is on the field(s) the cards can be activated.
Burning Land does require a Field Spell Card. Why? The first sentence is what implies this. You can't destroy something that isn't there in the first place. You're activating a card and getting no effect. You simply can't do that in this game.
Burning Land does require a Field Spell Card. Why? The first sentence is what implies this. You can't destroy something that isn't there in the first place. You're activating a card and getting no effect. You simply can't do that in this game.
The problem with Yu-Gi-Oh! is something that could be solved with a some simple templating. Vs had this same problem for a handful of effects at the beginning. It was rectified with the simple addition of three little words: "If you do..."
Destroy all Field Spell Cards on the field. If you do, inflict 500 points of damage to each player's Life Points during each of his/her Standby Phases.
Destroy all Field Spell Cards on the field. If you do, inflict 500 points of damage to each player's Life Points during each of his/her Standby Phases.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
You dont necessarily have to have a monster that is affected by Spell Cards to activate Dark Hole. You can still activate Dark Hole and Raigeki if your opponent only has a Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV6, and you have no monsters.
There are other effects that can make use of a Spell Card that will resolve without effect, but can still be activated properly.
There are other effects that can make use of a Spell Card that will resolve without effect, but can still be activated properly.
It doesn't matter, Dark Hole and Raigeki require a monster to be on the field(s) or proper field in order to be activated. That was the whole point of my post.masterwoo0 said:
And a lot of us know those cards Masterwoo0. Nobleman of Crossout v.s. Desert Sunlight/Acid Trap Hole/Ceasefire is a good example of that.
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
Well, I find me funny.
Both rulings are VERY old, by the way.
Explain to me exactly how that logic is wrong. Logically, ignoring the specific official rulings.masterwoo0 said:
"Destroy all" can include 0. "Destroy the" must mean 1. "Destroy a" can be 1 or 0.Tkwiget said:
The difference between "Dark Hole" (which says "all" and can include 0) and this card is that this card is a Permanent Magic card which has an effect that depends on its existence on the field.
And before we start arguing about how reliable the JERP rulings are:
Why CAN'T we argue about the logic behind rulings based on a JERP ruling? We argue about the logic of rulings based on blind speculation, after all. How is this any worse?
I think that a "then" would be more fitting and more consistent with current texts.Digital Jedi said:
For your purposes, no. You can't activate it without a field card on the field.Samuel said:
You would be correct.Samuel said:
masterwoo0
NINJA4LIFE
The logic is wrong because every other time I try to bring logic to this game, I'm told that the game is not about regular logic, so why introduce it now?
Dark Hole and Raigeki require to have a monster on the field to activate. "Destroy all" doesn't include 0. Zero monsters means there isn't anything to destroy. If there isn't anything to destroy then you aren't getting the effect of the card. You can't activate the card if you aren't going to get the effect.
Same thing applies to Burning Land.
Care to counter my argument? =)
Same thing applies to Burning Land.
Care to counter my argument? =)
Yes... the difference is that Dark Hole is a Normal Magic (with a non-continuous effect), and Burning Land is a Continuous Card (with BOTH a non-continuous effect and a Trigger).
There are plenty of examples of Continuous Cards that can be activated, with no actual effect present when the card resolves into play... WMC is a perfect example.
To compare Dark Hole to Burning Land is not an accurate comparison at all.
There is more to it, but it gets really technical.
There are plenty of examples of Continuous Cards that can be activated, with no actual effect present when the card resolves into play... WMC is a perfect example.
To compare Dark Hole to Burning Land is not an accurate comparison at all.
There is more to it, but it gets really technical.
As far as i can see, yes it's incorrect.
This should be a "complete as much of the effect as possible" and you should be able to activate Burning Land without a Field card already on the field.
I'm also not convinced that the second effect is tied to the first.
This should be a "complete as much of the effect as possible" and you should be able to activate Burning Land without a Field card already on the field.
I'm also not convinced that the second effect is tied to the first.
I was simply seeing the first sentence of Burning Land as an activation condition/requirement. I wasn't exactly paying attention since I had multiple things on my mind at the time.novastar said:
After looking at the card a little closer, I could actually see Raijinili's point of view.
Each sentence looks more like seperate effects to me.
Also, there aren't any official rulings that I've seen on Burning Land. @_@