I've tried to agree, but...

[Dr Sin]

I was thinking about Sangan and when his summon is negated via Horn of Heaven or Solemn Judgement. I searched in the forums, read the last discussion, I know the official rule says his effect is negated, but I still couldn' t "buy it".
Why his effect is negated if I summon him and the opponent "HoH, SJ"s him? Where is he at this moment and how is it possible to him not be in the hand or on the field? Is he in the already discussed "different dimension", "nowhere land", "limbo zone" etc?
I know the rule and I can just accept it, but if I could have some more reasons to believe it, it would be great.
Also, in the end, what statement about when Sangan is already face-down on the field, is flip-summoned and negated is accepted right now? In this case, his effect works or not?

Thanks in advande, sorry for my poor English and to be asking it again.

 

[novastar]

Honestly, im just giving my thoughts. My theory here is no more right than yours... i read your whole post, and its good.

 

[Digital Jedi]

The card is on the field, but the card has not been resolved to the field as of yet... it becomes an unsuccessful summon attempt, which is why you dont get to Normal Summon again.

The card text is not specific or clear enough in YGO, but the rulings give us enough to work with the understand that the "card" must be resolved to the field (as a proper Monster object) and then sent to the Graveyard in order for this effect to work.

Now, on the Flip Summon issue, i totally agree, there is definately a case there for the effect to still work.

The only explaination that I could offer would be that Flip Summoning in a sense, creates a "new" monster on the field, and resets the fact that the monster was already on the field while face-down. In that respect, it is treated the same way as if it were summoned from hand, and if that is negated, so is the effect and the presence of the monster on the field...

Just my thoughts

Well, see thats a good VS mechanic, but I've never seen evidence of it working that way in Yu-Gi-Oh!

There doesn't appear to be any distinction between a "monster" and a "monster card" as there is a distincton between a "character" and a "charcter card" in VS. The "monster resolveing" theory present problems with the summon of monsters between chains and the resolution timing of such an event. I don't think that was the game developers intention either and would explain the abscence of a Spell Speed for a summon.

 

[anthonyj]

I see your point DJ but if you are correct then there are some cards that are going to behave quite oddly with your theory. #1 Jinzo: since his effect is supposed to kick in immediately there shouldn't be a possibility of activating Horn of Heaven at all.
#2 Nightmare Penguin: flip summon him and his effect activates and becomes chain link 1, link 2 is Horn of Heaven. Now Horn will negate the summon but Nightmare Penguin doesn't have to be summoned successfully to activate it's effect it just has to be flipped face-up. Since that has already happened, negating the summon should have no bearing on negating the effect that is on chain link 1.

 

[novastar]

This very scenario seems to be evidence for it, also the active/deactive nature of Continuous Effects also point in that direction.

"cards" do seem to have to "resolve" to the field in some cases for certain effects to work.

Whether it becomes a "monster" or not is a seperate issue, and soley my theory. It has holes for sure.

 

[squid]

Im officially out of this thread.

anytime novastar shows up i leave. lol

no offense to him, but it just has to happen.

im never right when hes around. lol

or when D_X is around, or when alot of people are.

okay, i give up im never right lol

now, now, negative Nancy I love when Novastar shows up. Its a challenge just to think of how to respond to something intelligently, when he has already spoken.

This whole analogy thinking is way too 2-dimensional. In my own thinking, the player is this giant person who happens to drop their monster down to play. But before that monster really sets foot on the ground, the negator (in my head, its a giant tennis racket) swoops in and smacks that monster all the way to the Grave. No field effect for boopsie.

Sure, a "Red Zone" would be completely Appropriate here. But that is not available, or ever likely to be available. YGO can't even use the word 'magic'. I imagine that WotC would have a fit at using their actual game mechanics.

Instead, lets look at it from a different angle.

The field is a state on which card effects are openly stated and employed. There are other effects which specifically trigger or activate from the hand. But the problem lies in the area between the "field" and the hand.

The hand is identified clearly as the cards you hold. The field however, is ambiguous, in the sense that the player must play things from their hand and place them on the....Field? in order to activate them

Nope. Big misassumption on our parts.

The card is placed on the table; on the game mat; in the monster or s/t card zone.

When it is placed there, it become subject to response by an effect that "negates"

If no negation occurs, then the zone in which the card, monster or otherwise, becomes a part of the "Field", in which effects and chains and battles can occur.

Ive always tried to view and explain it as a two step process: Declaration and Summoning. The vaguaries of the card text for things like Solemn Judgment state that it negates the "Summons". Instead, I think it would be more Appropriate to say that it responds to the Declaration. Still no chaining involved, only responses. So, it doesn't alter the foundation of chaining vs. responding.

The issue is that the playing mat that is always referred to, is not the field. Think of the Field as an aura instead. It is part of the game and the game mechanics. But the paper mat underneath has nothing to do with the mechanics outside of the fact that it literally illustrates the mechanic that shows the limit to the number of cards/effects that can exist in a certain zone during one moment of time.

So, ya see. We do kind of have a Red Zone.

How's that sound?
*waits nervously for the firing squad*

 

[Digital Jedi]

I see your point DJ but if you are correct then there are some cards that are going to behave quite oddly with your theory. #1 Jinzo: since his effect is supposed to kick in immediately there shouldn't be a possibility of activating Horn of Heaven at all.
#2 Nightmare Penguin: flip summon him and his effect activates and becomes chain link 1, link 2 is Horn of Heaven. Now Horn will negate the summon but Nightmare Penguin doesn't have to be summoned successfully to activate it's effect it just has to be flipped face-up. Since that has already happened, negating the summon should have no bearing on negating the effect that is on chain link 1.

Nightmare Penguin still gets his effect if his Flip Summon is negated by Horn of Heaven? I've not heard of that before.

As far as Jinzo goes, as I stated way back when, I belive that you can still respond to the summon with a trap card that will make the summon "as if" it never happened. Therfore Jinzo's effect never becomes active. It's not a matter of Jinzo's nature. It's a matter of the Trap Card's nature.

 

[novastar]

Well, see thats a good VS mechanic, but I've never seen evidence of it working that way in Yu-Gi-Oh!

There doesn't appear to be any distinction between a "monster" and a "monster card" as there is a distincton between a "character" and a "charcter card" in VS. The "monster resolveing" theory present problems with the summon of monsters between chains and the resolution timing of such an event. I don't think that was the game developers intention either and would explain the abscence of a Spell Speed for a summon.

Also...interestingly enough VS handles Recruitment in a different manner, beyond just the creation of a chainable event. When you Recruit a character, the "card" itself is actually placed in the Chain Zone, which is where it resides until the Recruit Effect resolves and brings it into play. The Chain Zone in VS is comparable (but not exactly like) the Chain Block in YGO.

Since YGO's summon is not a chainable event, but rather an exposed event that you can directly respond to, it is obviously handled slightly different than effect resolution.

So whats YGO's terminology and solution? A summon way not "resolve" in the conventional sense, but rather is either "successful" or "unsuccessful"...i equate a successful summon that to a "resolution".

Different...but definately comparable...

The "window" of activation for HoH/SJ is actualy a makeShift fix to a design flaw. Which is why there is so much confusion behind this.

The "card" absolutely resides on the field when a summon attempt is made... the designers decided to add this special "activation window" for negaters in an attemt to give the opponent a chance to prevent the summon from being successful.

The summon itself is definaltely one mechanic is YGO that needs a rewrite.

 

[Tkwiget]

You know, since I have such a large lack of understanding of this thread about everything that's being discussed. It just makes me feel like I haven't learned anything.

Anyone, just anyone and I don't care who. Please just explain this to me in a simple manner. Because I'm giving up in discussing this because the level of how crappy my day just got. >=( You guys didn't cause it. A friend at work apparently got fired.

Anyway, I need to put my mind at rest with this subject so please someone post a recap of what the discussion is about and a conclusion. Too pissed off to try and understand it.

<takes some happy judge pills with a side dish of head ache capsules, but then cries cause he failed to learn something> T_T

 

[Digital Jedi]

Well, everything goes into the Chain Zone in VS. Except attacks from what I can gleen from the Comprehensive Rules. However, I still can't justify a chain point for the summon of a monster. It means that a monster brought out mid-chain must resolve onto the field before the current chain resolves in order for continuous effect monsters to have thier effects immediatly become activae mid-chain. Or it means that only monster summoned from the hand....ack! There goes a vien.

 

[novastar]

The main difference DJ is that the summon event is exposed, instead of being inside the resolution of an effect. I still see it as "resolving" ...Konami just choose to call it "(un)successful" in the case of summons and attacks.

They reserve the term "resolution" for effects.

 

[novastar]

You know, since I have such a large lack of understanding of this thread about everything that's being discussed. It just makes me feel like I haven't learned anything.

Anyone, just anyone and I don't care who. Please just explain this to me in a simple manner. Because I'm giving up in discussing this because the level of how crappy my day just got. >=( You guys didn't cause it. A friend at work apparently got fired.

Anyway, I need to put my mind at rest with this subject so please someone post a recap of what the discussion is about and a conclusion. Too pissed off to try and understand it.

<takes some happy judge pills with a side dish of head ache capsules, but then cries cause he failed to learn something> T_T

We are talking about where the Monster Card is (location) when a Normal Summon is declared.

Specifically...in the case of Sangan, and why it's effect doesn't Trigger if negated by HoH/SJ/RO.

 

[novastar]

Well, everything goes into the Chain Zone in VS. Except attacks from what I can gleen from the Comprehensive Rules. However, I still can't justify a chain point for the summon of a monster. It means that a monster brought out mid-chain must resolve onto the field before the current chain resolves in order for continuous effect monsters to have thier effects immediatly become activae mid-chain. Or it means that only monster summoned from the hand....ack! There goes a vien.

No, for example if you flip a Location or Ongoing Plot Twist that has an immediate Trigger...only the "effect" is put into the Chain Zone.

The "card" is still located in the Resource Row.

 

[squid]

I get what you are saying, DJ. But isn't it already a documented thing for continuous effects to activate, even interrupt currently resolving chains? Those summons occur as a result of another effect.

It would seem that the only issue is really in identifying the summoning that occurs from the hand.

TKwiget: Im not ignoring you, but I know better than to mess around with confusion when there are clearer heads involved here.

edit: you guys are killing me with the cross game analysis. I have the Comp. Rules for VS saved to flashdrive, but I haven't even attempted to go through them yet...

 

[Digital Jedi]

You know, since I have such a large lack of understanding of this thread about everything that's being discussed. It just makes me feel like I haven't learned anything.

Anyone, just anyone and I don't care who. Please just explain this to me in a simple manner. Because I'm giving up in discussing this because the level of how crappy my day just got. >=( You guys didn't cause it. A friend at work apparently got fired.

Anyway, I need to put my mind at rest with this subject so please someone post a recap of what the discussion is about and a conclusion. Too pissed off to try and understand it.

<takes some happy judge pills with a side dish of head ache capsules, but then cries cause he failed to learn something> T_T

In Summarry:
Where is a monster considered to be when its summon from the hand or Flip Summon is negated? Why doesn't Sangan get its effect when it's Flip Summon is negated? Isn't it destroyed on the field in that instance?

• Some are saying that it doesn't make sense, it MUST be either on the field or in the hand. So would that trigger the discard effect of a Night Assailant summoned from the hand?
  
• Krazykidpsx belives that should be or is a Limbo Zone comparable to a game mechanic in Magic: The Gathering that explains where the monster is and why it doesn't get it's effect.
  
• Nova belives that there is a chain point between the declaration of a summon and the resolution of that summon, which is where the summon negators would be activated. In that case a monster would not technically be a monster card or not be a succesfully resolved "monster object" in order for any effects it has to come into play.
  
• And I believe the summon is "undone" or "rewound" and made "as if" it never happened. I believe the event of a summon is truly negated, in the dictionary sence of the word, and the monster is simply destroyed. Not in field. Not in the hand. Not in a Limbo Zone. Just destroyed. Period. So no effects are even an issue.

 

[novastar]

And I believe the summon is "undone" or "rewound" and made "as if" it never happened. I believe the event of a summon is truly negated, in the dictionary sence of the word, and the monster is simply destroyed. Not in field. Not in the hand. Not in a Limbo Zone. Just destroyed. Period. So no effects are even an issue.

Interesting... its just a mystery...."because Konami said so"

 

[novastar]

edit: you guys are killing me with the cross game analysis. I have the Comp. Rules for VS saved to flashdrive, but I haven't even attempted to go through them yet...

lol...sorry, most people hate it and won't even entertain the ideas, but somtimes i like to find relatable material to sort things out in my head. Even if it means drawing from other (similar) games.

We'll stick to the YGO...

 

[Digital Jedi]

No, for example if you flip a Location or Ongoing Plot Twist that has an immediate Trigger...only the "effect" is put into the Chain Zone.

The "card" is still located in the Resource Row.

Yes, but we are dealing with a monster that is brought out in the middle of a chain. If Jinzo immediatly starts negating traps when brought out by Call of the Haunted, then he would have to resolve into a monster before the current chain resolves. And would that mean that there is a chain point when he's summoned that gets missed when he is summoned mid-chain? Or does his effect become active before he resolves into a monster?

 

[novastar]

And would that mean that there is a chain point when he's summoned that gets missed when he is summoned mid-chain?

Yes absolutely... Response timing is missed when monsters are summoned mid-chain.

If Call was the last effect to resolve...you could respond to Jinzo.

That is a function of Chains themselves, they only provide a response point to the last event after the entire chain resolves.

It's the same reason Optional Triggers miss timing mid-chain.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Interesting... its just a mystery...."because Konami said so"

Yeah, and that's actually part of my Reasoning. In my attempt to rationalize the rulings I can only find that they simply didn't create a zone or reason behind them. They simply didn't intend for a monster card to be either here or there when the monster was destroyed and didn't think anyone would care. So put simply....

 

[squid]

In Summarry:
Where is a monster considered to be when its summon from the hand or Flip Summon is negated? Why doesn't Sangan get its effect when it's Flip Summon is negated? Isn't it destroyed on the field in that instance?

Some are saying that it doesn't make sense, it MUST be either on the field or in the hand. So would that trigger the discard effect of a Night Assailant summoned from the hand?

Krazykidpsx belives that should be or is a Limbo Zone comparable to a game mechainc in Magic: The Gathering that explains where the monster is and why it gets it's effect.

Nova belives that there is a chain point between the declaration of a summon and the resolution of that summon, which is where the summon negators would be activated. In that case a monster would not technically be a monster card or not be a succesfully resolved "monster object" in order for any effects it has to come into play.

And I believe the summon is "undone" or "rewound" and made "as if" it never happened. I believe the event of a summon is truly negated, in the dictionary sence of the word, and the monster is simply destroyed. Not in field. Not in the hand. Not in a Limbo Zone. Just destroyed. Period. So no effects are even an issue.

*squishes all these theories together like mashed potatos and pats it firmly*

And I, for some reason, dare to venture an opinion:
I do believe that the placing of the monster card in the correct zone from the hand, is comparable to the "red zone" limbo that Krazykidpsx was mentioning.

This allows for the Declaration and Summoning that Novastar is referring to. However, its not a chainable point, its still just a response to the declaration of summons. Once that point has passed, then the Summons itself is a successful event that itself has a response point to.

In the case of a Flip Summon, regarding Sangan:

Face down the card is a blank. However, when set, the same set of circumstances, as outlined above, pertain. If simply destroyed (such as Dark Hole) then the set card was an acknowledged member of the "Field".

If Flip Summoned, however, the controlling player is replacing that blank set card with their Sangan (bear with me. I know its on the field) The Sangan has a Declaration of summoning, which can be negated, and it has a successful end, or summoning.

Its like it jumps out of the aura of the "field" and back into simply being in the proper monster card zone. Once the declaration has occurred, then the card has an opportunity to become a successful summons, and the monster is recognized as being part of the field. If negated during the declaration of Flip Summoning, then the card is destroyed while it was in a state of transition, and not recognized as being affectable (is that a word?) by the field. Sangan's own effect would not recognize being on the field, therefore its effect could not legally trigger.

The overall Field should be symbiotic to the nature of Field cards. Those cards have effects which blanket the field. When a card, like Gaia Power, does not exist, there is still a 'blanketing effect' that recognizes monsters and effects within its domain. Kind of like white noise. You may not hear it, but its there.