Confusion with Sak, MC resolving with monster switching control

[Dr Sin]

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

 

[ygo doc]

MasterwooO has given the correct ruling and interpretation on Magic Cylinder and why it will not inflict damage if the attacking monster changes sides.

I also agree with him in regards to Sakuretsu Armor. Although this card is not specifically listed in the Advanced FAQ regarding Activation & Targeting Eligibility, it is pretty clear from other rulings that if Sakuretsu Armor's target can no longer attack, it will not be destroyed. A targeted monster turned face-down by Book of Moon or returned to the Hand by Compulsory Evacuation Device/Beast Soul Swap will not be destroyed.

Sakuretsu Armor's text says "...Destroy the attacking monster." If the monster is not attacking, I don't see how it can be destroyed. Even if Enemy Controller was used to just turn the attacking monster into defense position, I would have to rule the same.

doc

 

[carlossilva]

ygo doc is quoted to have said:

Although this card is not specifically listed in the Advanced FAQ regarding Activation & Targeting Eligibility, it is pretty clear from other rulings that if [url="http://www.cogonline.net/threads.18128&page=2#"][url="http://www.cogonline.net/threads.18128&page=2#"]Sakuretsu Armor[/url][/url]'s target can no longer attack, it will not be destroyed. A targeted monster turned face-down by [url="http://www.cogonline.net/threads.18128&page=2#"]Book of Moon[/url] or returned to the Hand by [url="http://www.cogonline.net/threads.18128&page=2#"][url="http://www.cogonline.net/threads.18128&page=2#"][url="http://www.cogonline.net/threads.18128&page=2#"]Compulsory Evacuation Device[/url][/url][/url]/Beast Soul Swap will not be destroyed.

Which returns us to the question I had initially placed in the Negated Attacks thread. When exactly do we consider that the target can no longer attack ? If it leaves the field or changes sides it's obvious it can no longer attack. But what if :

a) the attack has already been negated when the card tries to resolve ?
b) it's still on the turn player's side of the field, but has been turned to face-up defense position ?

Answers in the other thread tended to it still resolving completely. Does this mean ther's more to it than it just being able to attack or not ?

Thanks

Carlos

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Sakuretsu Armor's text says "...Destroy the attacking monster." If the monster is not attacking, I don't see how it can be destroyed. Even if Enemy Controller was used to just turn the attacking monster into defense position, I would have to rule the same.

doc

If the turn player chains "Book of Moon" to "Sakuretsu Armor" to flip the attacking monster face-down, then the attacking monster is not destroyed by "Sakuretsu Armor".

It's still "the attacking monster" even though its turned face-down an no longer able to attack.

It doesn't have to still be attacking to be "the attacking mosnter"

Sakuretsu Armor and Magic Cylinder will still resolve against a defense position monster, or if Gravity Bind is activated etc.

 

[novastar]

When a targeted effect looses it's target the effect disappears ...that means no effect resolution, but rather a sort of "negated" resolution.

The is a difference between the negation of Magic Cylinder and fliping a monster into Defence Position with an effect of Book of Moon.

Even though Magic Cylinder negates an attack i don't believe (in terms of resolution requirements) that is factored in until the end, after the chain has resolved... much like a replay. It's triggered, but you don't actually perform it until the chian has resolved.

That is why in the case of Magic Cylinder, even though it negates the attack, it isn't factored in until the end. Whereas, fliping a monster face-down, creates an immediate change of state, because you've taken away that monsters ability to attack, therefore game mechanics remove the "attacker" designation.

 

[exiledforcefreak]

I was wrong, further clarification from John:

"v-lord only comes back if it were on your side of the field. in this case, if e-con were to resolve before sak armor, not only would it not be destroyed because it is no longer attacking, but it wouldn't come back because it isn't on the owner's side of the field if it were destroyed.

And remember that it has to be on your side of the field when it gets destroyed in order for it to come back [duh on this last part John]"