Complete Contradiction? Levia-Dragon vs. Demise

LionHeart

New Member
Am I reading these rulings correctly? Is it true that, even though Levia-Dragon - Daedalus, and Demise, King of Armageddon, have very similar ignition effects, that, if flipped face down, one of them will stay, while one will die? I can't help but wonder what the obscure rationale is behind this.

Levia Dragon - Daedalus:
"¢ When "Book of Moon" is chained to "Levia-Dragon Daedalus"' effect to flip it face-down, the effect still resolves, but "Levia-Dragon Daedalus" is destroyed by its own effect, since it's no longer "this card", it's just "a card".

Demise, King of Armageddon:
"¢ If an effect is chained to "Demise's" effect to flip "Demise, King of Armageddon" face-down, he is still not destroyed by his effect.
 
We know. There's been mention of this before. If you ask the Judge list you'll get "it's under review". So the official answer would likely be "who runs Levia-Dragon anyway?"

For now: It is what it is. BKSS.
 
LionHeart said:
Am I reading these rulings correctly? Is it true that, even though Levia-Dragon - Daedalus, and Demise, King of Armageddon, have very similar ignition effects, that, if flipped face down, one of them will stay, while one will die? I can't help but wonder what the obscure rationale is behind this.

Levia-Dragon - Daedalus:
"¢ When "Book of Moon" is chained to "Levia-Dragon Daedalus"' effect to flip it face-down, the effect still resolves, but "Levia-Dragon - Daedalus" is destroyed by its own effect, since it's no longer "this card", it's just "a card".

Demise, King of Armageddon:
"¢ If an effect is chained to "Demise's" effect to flip "Demise, King of Armageddon" face-down, he is still not destroyed by his effect.

Once again, we run into the intent of the card being put into the rulings and not into the card text. There are a few of these lying around, but this is the most obvious one. What would need to be defined with these two, is that one "except this card" is a face-up continuous effect, and the other is part of the Ignition Effect simply resolving off the chain. That would solve all the questions with these two, but, as with a lot of cards, we just have to wait it out to when they get around to it. Sadly. :(
 
@DJ...are you taking medication again? That just doesn't seem to make any sense...lol.

It has been a long standing rule that whenever a card is flipped face-down, it no longer becomes 'this card', but simply 'a card' for all other purposes. This is even clearly stated in the Rulings for "Levia Dragon". The "Demise" ruling is the only ruling I've seen that contradicts this.
 
skey23 said:
@DJ...are you taking medication again? That just doesn't seem to make any sense...lol.

It has been a long standing rule that whenever a card is flipped face-down, it no longer becomes 'this card', but simply 'a card' for all other purposes. This is even clearly stated in the Rulings for "Levia Dragon". The "Demise" ruling is the only ruling I've seen that contradicts this.
Unless, the effect just so happens to earmark "this card" at activation. That's what I'm getting at. The card seems to get marked for protection from the activation of the effect, which would make sense, if the effect still ignores what should be an unknown card when it wipes out the field. I'm just saying the text should reflect that.
 
densetsu_x said:
So the official answer would likely be "who runs Levia-Dragon anyway?"

Actually, with the release of FOTB and a card like Warrior of Atlantis, I've made what I call a "water, baby Demise" deck with Levia. It adds a lot of punch to (forgive the expression) "watered-down" Water decks by getting Legendary Ocean out to the field a lot faster than and adding some punch to Warrior if "Legendary Ocean" is on the field. While it may not see much Regional play or make Top 8, it's still a fun deck to play with at local tourneys.
 
Horus: It's a bit of an inside joke since without mentioning any names of the head person of the YGO side of UDE who gets all the blame for everything wrong usually makes the comment "Who runs <Card>?" whenever things like this pop up.
 
densetsu_x said:
Horus: It's a bit of an inside joke since without mentioning any names of the head person of the YGO side of UDE who gets all the blame for everything wrong usually makes the comment "Who runs <Card>?" whenever things like this pop up.

GOT IT!! Forgot about "K" and some of the others with their "comments".
 
densetsu_x said:
Horus: It's a bit of an inside joke since without mentioning any names of the head person of the YGO side of UDE who gets all the blame for everything wrong usually makes the comment "Who runs <Card>?" whenever things like this pop up.
Just think... Before Strike of Neos and Advanced Ritual Art, the comment probably would have extended to Demise as well!! lol
 
Digital Jedi said:
Unless, the effect just so happens to earmark "this card" at activation. That's what I'm getting at. The card seems to get marked for protection from the activation of the effect, which would make sense, if the effect still ignores what should be an unknown card when it wipes out the field. I'm just saying the text should reflect that.

this is a sore subject...i got the "levia" version from a judge ( L3 i think) when i asked before a regionals... when i was using hero/demise for the first time....and played it that way since - never looked @ faq...a friend had a diagreement with a judge recently, when he "booked" opponents demise...and i know it caused some hard feelings...it cost him a t8 spot...sigh...we talked about that ruling later and after i checked ...doh!...havent been able to talk to him since...
but it DOES make me wonder how, indeed, it works...whether , as dj says "marked for protection" or maybe demise dosent affect field at resolution - but targets all at activation except himself...do cards that were not on field at activation of demise's effect still get whacked?? ( say chain spiritual earth art to demise...) it would indeed be interesting to know how it works...
 
Back
Top