Jinzo, SORL, B. Jacker, Amplifier, Remove Brainwashing

J

Judicator

The Man in Room V
Situation:

Player A's Jinzo is equipped with Amplifier
Player B has facedown Brain Jacker and faceup Remove Brainwashing

A activates swords of revealing light thus causing B's Brain Jacker to flip

B uses Brain Jackers effect for Jinzo, then wouldnt an infinite loop occur?

A's Jinzo switches to B's side thus no longer negating Remove Brainwashing
A's (currently under B's control) Jinzo then switches back to A's side thus re-negating Remove Brainwashing and B's Jacker's effect kicks in again...etc.

So how should this situation resolve or be resoloved?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Well, I see your reasoning with infinite loops are illegal, but this is different from the regular infinite loops with Jinzo since in the other ones, at least one of the players have control of the situation, choosing whether to activate a card or not. BUT in this case, since jacker's effect is mandatory, and neither player has control of the siutation, player A doesn't know what is face down when activating swords of revealing light and player B doesn't have the capacity to control his/her Brain Jacker's effect.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Flip Effects are mandatory...yes. Just like Morphing Jar + Protector of the Sanctuary. However, since this situation would create an infinite loop exceptions are made. Jinzo would not be a valid target for Brain Jacker's effect, so it would have to take other monster or never resolve the effect of BJ because it has no valid target (more or less like if it's flipped by swords of revealing light and there is no face-up monster on the opposing field)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What about the Pole Position, Ax of Despair and Muka Muka (w/2 cards in hand) infinite loop?


Since the infinite loop is activated during draw phase?
Click to expand...

Maybe creating a rulling would resolve the problem.
-Negate Pole Position's effect would be an option
-Negate Muka Muka's effect would be another option
-Negate the Axe would be another option.
-You can't draw if you would make MM's attack higher enough to create the loop (I don't think this would be a good option :D)
-Muka Muka Blows itself as it would be ruining the game and all players take Direct Damage equal to Muka Muka's attack before adding the card(Muajajajajaja! Evilness)...:D
Etc.

They will figure something out. Ask this to the Judge list and you'll get the correct answer.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chaosruler said:
Um, certain cards are considered illegal activations now thanks to Pole Position, check it out

-chaosruler
Click to expand...

Nothing was activated illegaly, look:

Player A has a face up gemini Elf and Pole Position active on the field.
Player B has a face up Muka Muka Equipped with axe of despair but not enough cards in the hand (so Muka's attack is less than Gemini's)
Player B draws in the Draw Phase and Muka's attack is now greater than gemini's...

Infinite loop incoming!

We need a rulling for this!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
wait so let me get this straight the infinate loop thing is illigal what about the royal magical library and the butterfly dagger with gearfreed or the manticore combo those cant be done?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Suka044 said:
wait so let me get this straight the infinate loop thing is illigal what about the royal magical library and the butterfly dagger with gearfreed or the manticore combo those cant be done?
Click to expand...

Illegal loops are the kinds of loops that won't end, that players have no control of once it takes place.

Manticore + Card of Safe Return, Butterfly Dagger combos, or Morale Boost + Fire Princess + Gearfried + Buterfly Dagger are not illegal.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DimensionalWarrior said:
Nothing was activated illegaly, look:

Player A has a face up gemini Elf and Pole Position active on the field.
Player B has a face up Muka Muka Equipped with axe of despair but not enough cards in the hand (so Muka's attack is less than Gemini's)
Player B draws in the Draw Phase and Muka's attack is now greater than gemini's...

Infinite loop incoming!

We need a rulling for this!
Click to expand...


How about resolving it this way: Axe of Despair, out of being active/negated/active/negated/etc. would overheat causing it to explode, thus the loop resolves itself. :p

How about this: in the case of an infinite loop, flip a coin and call it. Whoever wins the toss decides which card involved in the loop is returned to the owner's hand by the effects of the loop. The card selected MUST stop the loop (so if Player A had two face-up Geminis, the player winning the toss could not select one of the Geminis, but could select Pole Position, Axe of Despair, or Muka Muka, but not a random card in the hand of the Muka Muka controller)

Simple and fair way to resolve all infinite loops, regardless of how it came about. And of course, you cannot play a card that you know will immediately cause an infinite loop.

But yes, we do need an official ruling.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't understand what the loop is. Since when Muka Muka has a higher attack it's not because of the Axe it's because of the cards in your hand. The ruling on Pole Position only talks about if you have a 1600 attack monster. MuKa Muka is not a 1600 atk monster.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Player B draws
Muka Muka gains ATK from draw
Pole Position switches targets to Muka Muka
Pole Position negates Axe of Despair
Pole Position switches target to Gemini
Axe of Despair is no longer negated and Muka Muka ATK goes back up
Pole Position switches targets to Muka Muka
[repeat]

Another idea: How about removing the first effect of the repeatable part of the chain.

So in the above example, Pole Position switches targets, but its effect does not apply to Muka Muka, so it becomes a meaningless card on the field until something changes causing an end to the loop. I like this idea even better.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Played another way (illegal, but let's say this was legal to see what happens)
Player B does not have Muka Muka equipped with Axe of Despair yet.

Player B draws
Muka Muka gains ATK from draw due to his effect, but it is still not more than Gemini.
Player B equips Muka Muka with Axe of Despair
Axe of Despair increases the ATK of Muka Muka due to the effect of Axe
Pole Position now applies to Muka Muka and negates Axe of Despair due to the effect of Pole Position
The negation causes the ATK to go down, so Pole Position no longer applies it effect to Muka Muka and applies it to Gemini due to the effect of Pole Position.
Axe of Despair is no longer negated. Axe of Despair increases the ATK of Muka Muka due to the effect of Axe [now repeating]

So under this, the increase of the ATK for Axe of Despair is negated, but it would stay equipped.


Let me try some others. Jinzo + amp + Remove Brainwashing + Brain Jacker + swords:

Swords of Revealing Light flips over Brain Jacker due to the effect of SoRL.
Brain Jacker equips to Jinzo due to the effect of Brain Jacker.
Jinzo switches sides due to the effect of Brain Jacker.
Jinzo no longer negates Remove Brainwashing, so Jinzo switches sides due to the effect of Remove Brainwashing.
Jinzo negates Remove Brainwashing due to the effect of Jinzo.
Jinzo switches sides due to the effect of Brain Jacker [now repeating].

So the effect of Brain Jacker shuts off.
Brain Jacker's effect being shut off means his whole effect, so he can no longer be equipped to Jinzo and is destroyed.

Rats, didn't come out exactly the same way I think the ruling would, which would be that the effect of Brain Jacker would be negated and Brain Jacker would remain a monster.

Still, it's a reasonable way to resolve these loops, especially when part of the loop IS resolvable. Doesn't make sense that you can't do any part of the resolved loop just because it ends in an unresolved loop.

Please, please, please, don't interpret this as an official ruling or anything other than the opinion of a non-judge who is trying to propose a solution that makes sense. But if enough other people think this is a good idea, perhaps some of the Higher Ups will consider it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
JOls said:
Player B draws
Muka Muka gains ATK from draw
Pole Position switches targets to Muka Muka
Pole Position negates Axe of Despair
Pole Position switches target to Gemini
Axe of Despair is no longer negated and Muka Muka ATK goes back up
Pole Position switches targets to Muka Muka
[repeat]

Another idea: How about removing the first effect of the repeatable part of the chain.

So in the above example, Pole Position switches targets, but its effect does not apply to Muka Muka, so it becomes a meaningless card on the field until something changes causing an end to the loop. I like this idea even better.
Click to expand...
I think it is much simpler than that.

Even though there is no "Official" ruling for this, after thinking about it for a bit, it seems very simple.

All the effects here are continuous here so they are all occuring all at the same time. None of them target, and Pole Position can affect more than one monster at a time (even going by the text).

My "guess" is that it would be handled in the same fashion as have 2 Gemini Elf's on the Field at the same time, they both would be unaffected.

Seems like the simplest solution, and it's how i would rule it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Judicator said:
Situation:

Player A's Jinzo is equipped with Amplifier
Player B has facedown Brain Jacker and faceup Remove Brainwashing

A activates Swords of Revealing Light thus causing B's Brain Jacker to flip

B uses Brain Jackers effect for Jinzo, then wouldnt an infinite loop occur?

A's Jinzo switches to B's side thus no longer negating Remove Brainwashing
A's (currently under B's control) Jinzo then switches back to A's side thus re-negating Remove Brainwashing and B's Jacker's effect kicks in again...etc.

So how should this situation resolve or be resoloved?
Click to expand...
Swords of Revealing Light would not be able to activate, and the game state is set to before it was played.

Dang it people, don't you EVER pay attention to these extrenuous rulings?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If I remember correctly remove brain washing and snatch steal the control does not revert back to the control of snatch steal even if remove brain washing is negated. would the same apply to brain jacker?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top