Confusion with Sak, MC resolving with monster switching control

D

Dr Sin

New Member
Right, this came up while I was seeing Negate Attack parts 1 and 2 thread.
It was kind of hard to find a relevant situation, but here it goes:

-TP has only Vampire Lord face-up on the field (no hand, no set s/t).
- NTP has only a spent MoF (face-up in the defense position) and 2 set cards (Enemy Controller and Sakuretsu Armor).
- TP declares VL attack to MoF.
- NTP activates Sakuretsu Armor, then EC, tributing his MoF and taking control of VL.
Chain resolves: link 2- VL switchs to NTP side of the field.
link 1: Sakuretsu resolves, destroying VL?

Question 1: VL will still be destroyed by Sak and thus will not return to TP in his Stand By phase (because VL was destroyed on the opponent side of the field) or Sak resolves without effect?

Question 2: same scenario with Magic Cylinder instead of Sak.
The ruling says: "If an effect is chained to "Magic Cylinder" that destroys the attacking monster, or removes the attacking monster from the turn player's side of the field (including switching it to your control, or sending it to the owner's hand), no damage is dealt by the effect of "Magic Cylinder"."
I don't understand why it happens (bolded part).
I mean: Magic Cylinder targets. His condition to be activated was fulfilled, and even when monsters switch control, the target is still face-up at the resolution time of MC. So why that happens?

Does it happen because MC text says: "Negate the attack of 1 of your opponent's monsters and inflict damage equal to the attacking monster's ATK to your opponent's Life Points" and at the time of resolution of MC the monster targeted is not an "opponent monster" anymore? Even considering it, it's an extremely different case...

I would appreciate some insights about it,

Thanks
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I may be oversimplifying, but when Sak tries to resolve (destroy the attacking Monster) the monster is no longer attacking. In fact, a replay would be occuring, so he could not continue with his attack anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Caution: May contain nonsense.

Dr Sin said:
Question 1: VL will still be destroyed by Sak and thus will not return to TP in his Stand By phase (because VL was destroyed on the opponent side of the field) or Sak resolves without effect?
Click to expand...
Sakuretsu Armor would resolve without effect.

When several cards are chained to an attack, and they all try to negate that attack (Magic Cylinder, Draining Shield, etc.), they all resolve fine. That's because throughout the chain the attacking monster is still considered to be attacking, and the negation of the attack will kick in after the chain has ended. It's still considered to be attacking because it's still legal for it to be attacking. No major change to the gameplay can occur in the middle of a chain. (Things like Voltanis the Adjudicator Special Summoning itself is considered a minor change, and things like Special Summons can easily happen by a card effect in a chain. Its effect still occurs after the current chain ends.)

(Consider Negate Attack. It's a Counter Trap Card, so must be the first thing activated in response to an attack. If it didn't have to be, though, and you chained it to another card or two, you'd be moving into a different Phase in the middle of a chain, and then possibly try to resolve cards that negate an attack. That's a major change in gameplay, and that's not allowed.)


However, if the attacking monster moves (change control) or switches position, it is illegal for it to be attacking, and so immediately after the card effect that does the moving/switching the monster is no longer considered to be attacking, because if it did it would go against the game mechanics. So cards that then try to negate the attack don't have an attack to negate, and resolve without effect.

Dr Sin said:
Does it happen because MC text says: "Negate the attack of 1 of your opponent's monsters and inflict damage equal to the attacking monster's ATK to your opponent's Life Points" and at the time of resolution of MC the monster targeted is not an "opponent monster" anymore? Even considering it, it's an extremely different case...
Click to expand...
Somewhat yes. If you take control of the attacking monster, it becomes illegal for it to attack (in the opponent's Battle Phase), and so it immediately stops attacking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maruno said:
(Consider Negate Attack. It's a Counter Trap Card, so must be the first thing activated in response to an attack. If it didn't have to be, though, and you chained it to another card or two, you'd be moving into a different Phase in the middle of a chain, and then possibly try to resolve cards that negate an attack. That's a major change in gameplay, and that's not allowed.)
Click to expand...
OK, this is not the first time I've heard of this "Negate Attack"-must-be-the-frist-thing-activated-in-response-to-an-attack idea and I don't know where it comes from. The rulings do not support this stance.

UDE FAQ for Amazoness Archers said:
If either player chains "Negate Attack" to "Amazoness Archers", the Battle Phase ends because of "Negate Attack"'s effect.
Click to expand...

And that's just the first one I found. "Negate Attack" is a counter trap. As such, it can be chained to any card activated before it. Assuming the timing is correct.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A Counter Trap, as implied by its name, must chain immediately to the thing it's encountering. You can't play Pot of Greed, chain a Call of the Haunted and a Raigeki Break, and then your opponent chain Magic Jammer to negate the Pot of Greed.

Negate Attack must be activated as the first card in response to the attack. Normal Traps can be added at any point to the first chain created in response to their trigger event. (We're ignoring cards here that can be activated whenever.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maruno said:
A Counter Trap, as implied by its name, must chain immediately to the thing it's encountering. You can't play Pot of Greed, chain a Call of the Haunted and a Raigeki Break, and then your opponent chain Magic Jammer to negate the Pot of Greed.

Negate Attack must be activated as the first card in response to the attack. Normal Traps can be added at any point to the first chain created in response to their trigger event. (We're ignoring cards here that can be activated whenever.)
Click to expand...
Um, Negate Attack doesn't have to be the first link in the chain block. This is a unique Counter Trap card that doesn't follow the same mechanics as the rest of them. It can chain to cards such as Magic Cylinder and Sakuretsu Armor legally. An example of how Negate Attack is unique compared to the rest of the Counter Traps is Amazoness Archers v.s. Negate Attack ruling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"Negate Attack" does not HAVE to be the first thing to be activated in the Attack Response chain. It is the 'black sheep' of the Counter Trap world. It can be the first, or the last card activated in the chain.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Negating attack declarations is a lot different than negating Spell, Trap, and Monster effects. This is why Negate Attack functions the say way as Sakuretsu Armor and Magic Cylinder in being on any link on the chain in order to work correctly.

Proof of this is the ruling it has with Amazoness Archers that Derek (Kyhotae) pointed out.

[Re: Amazoness Archers] If either player chains "Negate Attack" to "Amazoness Archers", the Battle Phase ends because of "Negate Attack"'s effect.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
there are two things we need to remember here.

the first thing to remember is that all links on a chain resolve even if one of the chain links causes a replay.

the second thing to remember is although sakuretsu has the ambiguous wording of "destroy the attacking monster" sakuretsu armor DOES in fact TARGET. As we all know, targets are chosen at activation and the only way for the effect to resolve without effect is if the targeted monster is no longer in play when the effect resolves.

these two things in mind:
-Enemy Controller will resolve first and caust Vampire Lord to go to the NTP's side of the field.
-Sakuretsu Armor will resolve second destroying the very same Vampire Lord.
-result: Vampire lord will not come back to either player's side fo the field

for more on ambiguous wording see Hand of nephthys vs. soul exchange
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Magic Cylinder targets 1 face-up monster on the opponent's side of the field.
So if the monster changes sides it is no longer a valid target so the effect disappears.

Can Sakuretsu Armor target 1 of your own monsters ?
If not then of course the effect would disappear the same way as with Magic Cylinder.
However if it can then it would destroy the monster.

SakAr can only be activated when an opponent's monster attacks so it looks like it could only target an opponent's monster BUT that is just an extrapolation, nothing is written in the FAQ about this.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
magic cylinder negates an attack, sakuretsu armor does not. In order for magic cylinder to resolve it must negate an attack.

when the monster shifts sides of the field the attack concludes, a replay is triggered, and you finish resolving the chain. after the chain resolves, you perform a replay.

Since there is no attack for magic cylinder to negate at the time it resolves it will resolve without effect.

Anything else need explaining? :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks Exiledforcefreak for understanding what I was trying to discuss in fact.
I just wonder if there is any other person that share this point of view (Sak would resolve destroying VL).
MC case I am not completely convinced, but it makes sense too.

Thanks
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ok, so here's the deal.

"chains must totally resolve before you decide if there is a change in the amount of monsters on the defenders side of the field. so in this situation, even if you tribute a monster to eCon, in a chain, cards before eCon would still resolve as normal. meaning mirror force and sak armor would destroy. draining shield and cylinder would still have their effect and so on."

draining shield and cylinder are no exception.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
How does Sakuretsu Armor destroy a monster on the non-attacking players side of the field? To me, that's like saying it will still destroy a monster that got Book of Moon'd face-down. It should no longer be a legal target since it is no longer on the attacking players side of the field.

If Magic Cylinder cannot resolve and negate the attack, neither can Sakuretsu Armor resolve and destroy Vampire Lord.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
exiledforcefreak said:
not only did I say it the first time...
but i verified it with John Williams who has head judged several shonen jumps. That previous post is a quote from John Willaims.
Click to expand...
While I certainly respect John Williams IV and have judged with him in a SJC as well, neither John nor myself can say that we are batting 100% with our Rulings, and I'll leave it at that.

Additionally, Magic Cylinder states that you are negating the attack of one of your opponents monsters. If your opponent no longer has a monster on his side of the field, how can you negate its attack with Magic Cylinder? It is now on your side of the field, and your monster, not your opponents. This is the same verbage as D.D. Assailant.

If you attack a Ancient Lamp with Cyber Dragon, and it is flipped face-up, causing you to attack and destroy your D.D. Assailant, it does not remove Cyber Dragon from play since it was not your opponent's monster that you were attacked by.

I agree that Magic Cylinder will resolve, but with no effect.

UDE said:
If an effect is chained to "Magic Cylinder" that destroys the attacking monster, or removes the attacking monster from the turn player's side of the field (including switching it to your control, or sending it to the owner's hand), no damage is dealt by the effect of "Magic Cylinder".
Click to expand...
That should also apply to Sakuretsu Armor since the target is no longer under the attacking players control.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top