Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World vs Bottomless Trap Hole

[Digital Jedi]

Could be the lack of sleep or food is muddling my thinking. Could be as plain as the nose on my face. But thi strikes my as odd.

If "Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World" is discarded by your opponent's card effect, when his effect resolves, he is Special Summoned first, and then the second part of his effect resolves. So the opponent cannot activate "Bottomless Trap Hole" or "Torrential Tribute"; the timing is no longer correct. Also, you could not draw a card for the effect of "Card of Safe Return".

Interesting. This is a single effect with two parts. But since when can we not respond to a summon with Bottomless Trap Hole because an effect is part of the summon? How is this different from a monster being summoned with an Ignition Effect and then chaining Bottomless Trap Hole to that effect?

 

[Jason_C]

I could have sworn it was aGreed if you tribute a monster for Ha Des, and use Last Will to summon Newdoria, the opponent never gets an opportunity to play Bottomless Trap Hole?
-pssvr

 

[Digital Jedi]

RIght and I get that. What I don't get, as anthony pointed out, is the resolution process. The discarding/destroying and the summon are being seperated into two events that happen in chronilogical order. Wheras most effects that read this way would resilve both effects at the same time.

 

[daivahataka]

But in the Cyber Jar exaple you are not negateing the flip summon but the special summoning of the monsters. Flip summoning is not a special summons so Royal Oppression can't stop the flip summoning. What Royal Oppresion does is stop the special summoning of monsters by Cyber Jars effect and negates its effect. You get nothing out of the flipped Cyber Jar and its destroyed cause royal oppresion not only negates effect but also negates the effect that would special summon the monster(s). Now was it poor wording on the Dark World monster for US release, oh yeah. Their could have been a better way to show the second effect linked so to speak to the first.

Ahh, thought you were coming in from a wholey different angle there.o

It doesnt have to imply it. There's no way to really stop the Second Effect from happening if you don't negate the Summon, unless you get rid of your cards in hand by a couple Raigeki Breaks or destroy/remove cards on the field before Goldd can destroy them.

But my point was where on the card is there anything to indicate that it requires the summon for the second effect to be successful? Nowhere => a BKSS.

If it's reliant on a successful summon why isn't it activated upon the special summon, if it simply requires the monster to still be on the field at resolution they could've stipulated as such on the card.

 

[masterwoo0]

Okay, I guess one of the easiest ways to put this to rest is....

Sure, Konami Said So!

But they dont have to say so. How can he get his effect otherwise? Just because he actually was discarded by your opponents effect? That isnt how it's listed in the text of the card. It breaks down more like an Addendum.

If this card is discarded from the hand to the Graveyard by a card effect, Special Summon this card to your side of the field. If this card is discarded from the hand to the Graveyard by your opponent's card effect, you can select up to 2 cards on your opponent's side of the field and destroy them.

We already know that by virtue of being discarded, he's coming back. We all agree that there is no doubt about that. So, there are two ways he will return; with his second effect, or without it.

It isnt dependant on him being Special Summoned. It's dependant on how he was discarded.

I see what you are saying though. And it really is slightly misleading, but you really have to just say in this case that

A) he is going to be Special Summoned.

B) now that he is summoned, what can he


Does it sound like it is implying more than necessary to tie their effects in with the summoning, and not as a separate event independant of the actual summon?

I cant see this ever being a event all to its own, where you can just say, "Even though he wasnt summoned, you still have to discard/destroy 2 cards because you sent my monster to the Graveyard by an effect!!"

 

[daivahataka]

Considering the effect, the way the syntax is is awful, I can honestly see having to convince people that even though an opponent's card caused the discard it still gets special summoned, they should've at least put it as:

If this card is discarded from the hand to the Graveyard by a card effect, Special Summon this card to your side of the field, also, if this card is discarded from the hand to the Graveyard by your opponent's card effect, you can select up to 2 cards on your opponent's side of the field and destroy them.

and give some indication that the two are connected and not wholey different circumstances.
This would be far from the first card to get an effect when discarded by an opponent's card's effect (e.g. Elephant Statue of Disaster), none of the others require being summoned, they REALLY should've put more than 5 minutes thought into the text to make it clear that B's resolution depends upon A (at least then the confusion would be restricted to why unlike other effects requiring a successful summon does this one activate before the summon has occured).

 

[Raijinili]

It's not BKSS, it's BKWP (Because Konami Worded Poorly).

このカードが他のカードの効果によって手札から墓地に捨てられた場合、このカードを自分フィールド上に特殊召喚する。
相手のカードの効果によって捨てられた場合、さらに相手フィールド上に存在するカードを２枚まで選択して破壊する事ができる。

The original Japanese had "sarani" before the second effect, which indicates a followthrough (Babelfish translates it as "furthermore").

Also, as for whether this (the BTH ruling) is new: no, it's not. For a long time, Dimension Magic (summons a monster, then lets you destroy one), if you used the second effect, would stop your opponent from using BTH. More often, players had to choose whether to use the second effect or allow the effect of their just-summoned Dark Magician of Chaos to grab them a Spell card.

But Dimension Magic isn't in America, which is why you didn't hear of it.

Plenty of other cards have had two or more parts. For example, Ceasefire, The Creator. In the past year, whenever new cards came out, I would look at effects and ask, "Is this second effect independent from the first?"

Okay, other people ask. I don't look at spoilers.

 

[daivahataka]

"furthermore", like also would imply that it's additional to not neccessarily dependent on, so it's still a BKSS/BKWP (semantics IMO).

Timing for BTH is nothing new, however having the second effect of the card resolve immediately after summoning when dependent on successful summon is for those outside the OCG, normally BTH could be chained to the activated effect.

Ceasefire is a bad example of a two parter in this case since it doesn't need to flip a card to inflict damage (e.g. if your opponent chained Desert Sunlight), the two parts are independent.
The Creator only has one effect which is badly syntaxed again, but the first sentence is meaningless without the second so it won't confuse anyone in spite of this. The last bit of it's text is just a condition upon The Creator itself.

 

[masterwoo0]

"furthermore", like also would imply that it's additional to not neccessarily dependent on, so it's still a BKSS/BKWP (semantics IMO).

It is depedent on. He can be special summoned without being discarded, and he can be special summoned from your own discard, both of which would not trigger his second effect.

So, yes, it is depedent on because you will most defintely cry foul when your opponent is trying to get you to send cards from your hand or destroy cards on the field if he discarded his own hand by flip summoning Morphing Jar or playing Card Destruction.

 

[daivahataka]

??? Not sure what you're arguing against there? I simply said that "furthermore" merely implies that the second effect is additional to the special summon when discarded, not that it is necessarily dependant upon it. How would this possibly allow someone to claim that they can use the second effect without its stated trigger?
Anyway think it's pretty clear at this point that what the card says and what it does aren't quite the same (and if we're only going in circles here now), we just need to make sure players are informed of how it works.

 

[Raijinili]

"furthermore", like also would imply that it's additional to not neccessarily dependent on, so it's still a BKSS/BKWP (semantics IMO).

Of course, you are basing your complaint of wording on a Babelfish translation.

Timing for BTH is nothing new, however having the second effect of the card resolve immediately after summoning when dependent on successful summon is for those outside the OCG, normally BTH could be chained to the activated effect.

You think of this card's effect as Sacred Phoenix of Nephthys.

Nephthys says, "If you Special Summon this card successfully in this way". On the other hand, the Dark World cards say (Edo's translation), "If discarded by an opponent's card effect, your opponent also..."

Ceasefire is a bad example of a two parter in this case since it doesn't need to flip a card to inflict damage (e.g. if your opponent chained Desert Sunlight), the two parts are independent.

They happen in a certain order.

The Creator only has one effect which is badly syntaxed again, but the first sentence is meaningless without the second so it won't confuse anyone in spite of this. The last bit of it's text is just a condition upon The Creator itself.

Fine, I can't think of any English cards that have a secondary dependent effect that doesn't have a reason to be dependent (example: Nobleman of Crossout).

 

[masterwoo0]

??? Not sure what you're arguing against there? I simply said that "furthermore" merely implies that the second effect is additional to the special summon when discarded, not that it is necessarily dependant upon it. How would this possibly allow someone to claim that they can use the second effect without its stated trigger?
Anyway think it's pretty clear at this point that what the card says and what it does aren't quite the same (and if we're only going in circles here now), we just need to make sure players are informed of how it works.

I'm not arguing. I've said all along that the second effect is merely an Addendum to the first effect, but only if he was discarded by the opponents card effect and not by the controller's.

So all I am saying is that you only get the second effect if the discard was forced by your opponent. You dont get it if you cause it yourself by using, say, Card Destruction. In that case, it would be almost as if the second effect never existed.

 

[daivahataka]

Of course, you are basing your complaint of wording on a Babelfish translation.

Think I'll ask my coworker what sarani translates as when she gets back from lunch, see if there's any translation which means anything more than also/furthermore/aswell/additionally.

You think of this card's effect as Sacred Phoenix of Nephthys.

Nephthys says, "If you Special Summon this card successfully in this way". On the other hand, the Dark World cards say (Edo's translation), "If discarded by an opponent's card effect, your opponent also..."

Phoenix's effect activates after it arrives back on the field though, so it can be BTH-ed.

They happen in a certain order.

Which has nothing to do with the confusion over this card's text vs. its effect, everything in the game happens in a certain order, it's the specific timing spacing the order that's the issue here.
(Why if dependant on the successful special summon does the effect activate before the summon resolves, or more precisely why is it even dependant on the successful special summon)

Seriously this is just going around in circles at this point.



*asked the girl ad she said sarani = "more over". So no additional bindings between the two beyond the second being an extra to the first if the discard is due to the opponent's effect*

 

[Raijinili]

*asked the girl ad she said sarani = "more over". So no additional bindings between the two beyond the second being an extra to the first if the discard is due to the opponent's effect*

That's no way to get the feel of the word. Why didn't you ask about its implications, or give the context?

Besides, you were satisfied with "also" before.

 

[daivahataka]

I did and she said it didn't add any further connections between the two, and I wasn't happy with also, just that it would've been an improvement as the current syntax and wording would indicate you only get one of the effects, never both, which we know is very wrong.

 

[Teufelhunden]

Let me see if I have this right. If I tribute or special summon a monster, my opponent has the right to "respond" (not chain). If I special summon a monster to the field as a result of a chain and is not the last thing to happen then my opponent cannot respond to the summon only to the event that starts the chain and he/she may "chain" to the last thing that happens in the chain. Is that it in a nut shell?

 

[Raijinili]

Only to the event that last resolved in the chain.

Also, chaining happens before, while responding happens after. So they respond to the last event, not chain to it.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Let me see if I have this right. If I tribute or special summon a monster, my opponent has the right to "respond" (not chain). If I special summon a monster to the field as a result of a chain and is not the last thing to happen then my opponent cannot respond to the summon only to the event that starts the chain and he/she may "chain" to the last thing that happens in the chain. Is that it in a nut shell?

The key issue being the interferance of the Dark World monster's secondary effect when they are discarded by an opponent's card effect. If the Special Summon where happing all by itself, then Bottomless Trap Hole could be activated in response to it. But when the secondary effect is triggered too, then it interferes with Bottomless's timing.

 

[Teufelhunden]

Then why can you BTH Mobious and Breaker when the last thing that happens is not a summon, and you cannot chain to a summon?

 

[Digital Jedi]

It's different in that, in Mobius' and Breaker's case, the summon is the last event to fully resolve. Bottomless can only respond to a summon if the last succesful event to resolve is a summon. Your chaining Bottomeless to the effects that triggered when these monsters were summoned, but those are unresolved effects.

The Dark World monsters have these timing issues where, if discarded by your opponent's card effect, the Special Summon resolves first and then the Descard/Destruction resolves second. In that order.

But even thought these two things are resolveing seprately, we are still in the middle of the resolution of one effect. Bottomless can't be activated in the middle of a chain (where the summon resolves) and it can't be activated when the effect fully resolves becaue the summon is no longer the last thing to succesfully resolve. The discard/destruction is.

 

[Jason_C]

Which, if I'm not mistaken, is a complex way of saying the Dark Realmies have VERY strange effects... Correct?

-pssvr