Deflected Damage.

L

Ledah

New Member
I came across this card:

Aqua/Gemini
Leve 3
Magical Reflect Slime

* This card is treated as a Normal Monster while face-up on the field or in the Graveyard. While this card is face-up on the field, you can Normal Summon it to have it be treated as an Effect Monster with this effect:
- Your opponent takes all Battle Damage that you would have taken from a battle involving this card.


And I was just wondering:

What kind of damage does the slime does?

Battle? (For purposes of Robbin Goblin)
Or effect? (For Dark Room of Nightmare)

And last question :p

Is there another monster with the same effect?

Once again thanks
:p
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Let's go for a quick example.

Yugi's Neo the Magic Swordsman (1700 ATK) attacks Marik's Attack Position Magical Reflect Slime (700 ATK). Neo inflicts lethal Battle Damage to the Slime (700), and the rest (1000) is inflicted as Battle Damage to Marik. However, Slime's effect says the Battle Damage that Marik takes (the 1000) is instead inflicted to Yugi. It's still Battle Damage, but inflicted to the other player instead (Yugi). Magical Reflect Slime is destroyed by battle.

This effect can be used offensively. Kaiba has a Blue-Eyes Ultimate Dragon out (obviously in Attack Position - Kaiba wouldn't make such a beast defend), and Marik attacks it with his Slime. He loses his Slime, but the Battle Damage he would have taken (4500-700=3800) is instead inflicted to Kaiba. Kaiba loses a significant chunk of his Life Points, and Marik only loses his Slime.

The effect of Magical Reflect Slime doesn't change the Battle Damage into something else. It simply reflects it back at the other player.


Amazoness Swords Woman has the same effect as Magical Reflect Slime, as do the Tokens generated by Fiend's Sanctuary. Dimension Wall is a Trap Card with the same effect.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I knew that there are more cards like that one...


Anyway...

As for gobblin robbins effect... (Because the door won't work now :p)

It should work right?

Since text on robin reads like this:

*Each time a monster you control inflicts Battle Damage to your opponent, your opponent discards 1 random card.

So it does work right?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
"Amazoness Swords Woman" doesn't inflict the damage, it just redirects the damage to your opponent. It's the opponent's monster inflicting damage to your opponent's Life Points, so "Robbin' Goblin" shouldn't work.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
• [Re: Begone, Knave!] The effect of "Begone, Knave!" is applied to the monster that inflicts Battle Damage to the player, so if "Amazoness Swords Woman" battles a stronger monster, "Amazoness Swords Woman" would normally be returned to the owner's hand, but because she is destroyed and sent to the Graveyard, she will not be returned.

Even though it is by effect, she is the one inflicting the damage and that damage is Battle Damage.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wouldn't that count as MY monster inflicting battle damage to my opponent?

Since the type of damage (Battle or effect) never changes.

I think robbin's effect is still applied.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
• [Re: Begone, Knave!] The effect of "Begone, Knave!" is applied to the monster that inflicts Battle Damage to the player, so if "Amazoness Swords Woman" battles a stronger monster, "Amazoness Swords Woman" would normally be returned to the owner's hand, but because she is destroyed and sent to the Graveyard, she will not be returned.
Click to expand...
This effect states that Amazoness Swords Woman would be returned to the hand (ignore the fact that it's likely to be destroyed by battle instead). Since it would be returned to the hand, Amazoness Swords Woman inflicted Battle Damage, and the stronger monster didn't.

Therefore the effect of Amazoness Swords Woman would more accurately read like: "Any Battle Damage you take from a battle involving this card becomes zero, and inflict that same amount of Battle Damage you would have taken to your opponent."

Here it is more easily seen that Amazoness Swords Woman is inflicting the Battle Damage. This covers the above ruling. It's an "active" effect, in that it's actually reducing damage and inflicting some other damage (as opposed to a "passive" effect where it would simply redirect the damage). It just so happens that the damage inflicted must be the same value as the damage that was reduced to zero.

Now consider the case where Player 1 controls Robbin' Goblin and Gemini Elf, and Player 2 controls Amazoness Swords Woman. Even if the Battle Damage was simply redirected, and not inflicted depending on would have been taken, Robbin' Goblin still would not activate. The Battle Damage needs to be inflicted to the opponent (Player 2), but it's been inflicted on you (Player 1) instead.

The only way Robbin' Goblin will work when Amazoness Swords Woman is involved, is when one player controls both cards. In this case, when the Amazoness Swords Woman is attacked by a stronger monster, Robbin' Goblin's effect will activate, because Amazoness Swords Woman is inflicting damage to the opponent (the player who does not control Robbin' Goblin & Amazoness Swords Woman).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't think so...


Becuase for your robbin to activate, a monster on your side of the field has to do battle damage.

And I was suggesting that I control both the slime and the robbin.

(Although my first idea was to use the door, but I think using the goblin is a better strategy
:p, also, I haven't come across with a card that deflects damage such as this one)

:p
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No because Dimension Wall is not a Monster. Therefore your opponent would be taking Battle Damage from your Trap Card, but for Robbin' Goblin, it must be from your Monster. Make sense?

Ledah beat me to it!!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hold the Phone......

Check this ruling out from Big Bang Shot (important point emboldend & italicized):

• The battle damage caused when the equipped monster attacks a Defense Position monster is considered to come from the equipped monster, not from "Big Bang Shot". So a "Don Zaloog" equipped with "Big Bang Shot" could still make the opponent discard 1 card when attacking a face-down monster with low DEF.
This would seem to suggest that the "Battle Damage" is still done by the Attacking Monster, though redirrected. I wonder why it is different with Amozoness? Maybe because it is a Monster and like Entropy suggests Traps/Spells don't inflict Battle Damage, Monsters do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The two cards are not really comparable, because Big Bang Shot (and similar) simply add a condition to the equipped monster which says "I do Piercing Battle Damage now". That's what Equips do, they add something to the monster.

Amazoness Swords Woman et al. are reducing Battle Damage to zero, and inflicting it back. Completely different.

My wording in all that isn't great (Big Bang Shot doesn't stick a condition on the monster), but my mind's tired.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And I'm going to disagree and support the ruling given by DLoC.

The Trap Card itself is not dealing any damage. It is merely redirecting that damage back to the other player. The source of the Battle Damage is still the monster attacking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Heeeeyyyy

I gave the ruling first...

:p

Anyway...

We are talking about the activation conditions for Robbin Gobblin which is that a MONSTER you control has to do battle damage.

Oh... wait...
I think I see what point of all this is...

When it says "monster you control" the game is assuming that is on your side of the field right?
And not just "any monster on the field" right?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I was trying to explain the Begone, Knave! ruling, which implied that the effect that redirects the damage is seen as the new source of the damage (because Amazoness Swords Woman would be returned). It's certainly strange when you consider Dimension Wall.

In the end, I have no real idea what's going on with this, and a clarification would be both useful and unlikely.

"A monster you control" is exactly the same as "a monster on your side of the field". If Robbin' Goblin meant to say "any monster on the field, regardless of who controls it", it would say so.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top