Master Monk

masterwoo0

masterwoo0

NINJA4LIFE
I didnt think my question was that hard, but it only took about 4 to 5 months to answer....


Master Monk vs Book of Moon or Tsukuyomi 2006-03-30 15:59:00 <James Johnson>


1. Okay, Master Monk's effect allows him to attack twice in the same Battle Phase,
but not necessarily back to back, so he can attack, then let another monster
attack, and resume Battle himself.

That being said, if Master Monk attacks a monster, and after the Damage
Calculation is complete, my opponent activates Book of Moon to flip him
face-down, does this reset his effect if he is somehow flipped face-up in attack,
allowing him to again attack twice in the same Battle face, ignoring the fact
that he already attacked once,

or

Will he only be able to carry out his second attack, if he can still attack
at all?

2. Same scenario as above, only substitute attacking a face-down Tsukuyomi.

Thanks!

----------------------------------------------------

If you attack once (or twice), and then after the attack "Master Monk" is flipped-face down by "Tsukuyomi" or "Book of Moon",
you could activate "Desert Sunlight" then "Final Attack Orders" and attack 2 more times.

Dan Scheidegger
Jr. Game Designer
Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG R&D
Upper Deck Entertainment
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Right, and no matter how many tickets are re-issued the fact would remain that the card still had spent at least one ticket for the purpose of position changes.
Click to expand...
True, but it is the Battle Position change that is dependant on the Attack Declaration, not the other way around.

If i manually switch a monster into defence position and than by effect switch it back to attack position, i can still attack.

Conversely, if i attack first, i can no longer perform my manual change.

Additionally, the Battle Position change restriction applies to both face-up and face-down monsters, not really referencing the monster by name. However, Attack Declarations (so far) can only occur from face-up monsters, suggesting that they are tied to the monster by name, rather than a restriction on the player (Notmal Summon), or "a monster" (Battle Position change).

So my belief is that Battle Position change and Attack Declaration are inherently different in term of replenishment.

Although once the clarification comes i'm sure it would be good to know. (I'm thinking among the line of the rule in tennis That you can hit the ball around the net instead of over: you're not going to be planning on it happening, but if you ever get the opportunity, you should know that its there.)
Click to expand...
Absolutely, i would like it clarified as well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
The flip-facedown-resets-effect rules has ben around since before BLS time, possibly even farther back then that. Certainly before Mataza the Zapper. If flip-flops reset attacks, why would we just be hearing about this now?
Click to expand...
That's my point also! It would seem that it would have been announced at the same time, not like some type of "scavenger hunt", where you find enough clues to guess where the missing ruling is....

I can't really see where that could be possible.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So basically what you're saying here is that either:dj_spiri A. We have a formerly unknown game motif (flip/flop re-attack) or :huh_jedi: B. Dan goofed up a little-- like on his post involving Dark World Monsters (see BOLD below and note, what the ruling is for Broww, it is for Goldd and Sillva). Proving that UDE guys, especially new ones, are in fact human. Check it out.....

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=8929


Player A controls a face down Banisher of Light and a set Ceasefire (from his previous turn).

Player B has Beiige, Vanguard of Dark World, Broww, Huntsman of Dark World, Sillva, Warlord of Dark World and Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World in his hand.

Player B activates Card Destruction and Player A chains with Ceasefire, flipping Bansher face up, both players discard and draw the same number etc.

so Player B's Dark World monsters will be discarded, but they won't get their effects right?


also let's say Player B plays Card Destruction, with the same hand as in the above example, and b/c of the effects special summon multiple Dark World monsters, Player A's single Bottomless Traphole remove them all (like with Cyber Jar)
correct?

thanks,
dingo
----------------------------------------

1 - Correct. The "Dark World" monsters where not "discarded from the hand to the Graveyard", so their effects do not activate.

2 - This is not correct. "Cyber Jar" is a single effect that Special Summons multiple monsters. In your situation you have 4 effects that activated, 3 of which Special Summon a monster. You opponent would get to order their effects into a chain.
If they are smart, they will make "Broww" Chain Link 1, so that it resolves last. In that case "Bottomless Trap Hole" could not be activated because the timing is incorrect. The last thing to happen was drawing a card.

If they did order the effects so that "Goldd" was Chain Link 1, you could activate "Bottomless Trap Hole", but it would only destroy "Goldd".

Dan Scheidegger
Jr. Game Designer
Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG R&D
Upper Deck Entertainment

:peace_jed this to say, He's new, like me. We all make mistakes our first few times around.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
What is wrong with the ruling?

When Broww's effect activates, you draw a card. The ruling is correct. You wouldnt be able to activate Bottomless Trap Hole because the last thing to happen is a card being drawn, and Goldd, Beiige, and Sillva have long been summoned before hand.

And why does everyone think Dan is new??
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
The flip-facedown-resets-effect rules has ben around since before BLS time, possibly even farther back then that. Certainly before Mataza the Zapper. If flip-flops reset attacks, why would we just be hearing about this now?
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever asked?

There is a definate hole yes, but Dan's remarks seem to imply this.

However, it is possible that they are suggesting that this is a special case just for these multi-attack effect monsters.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
Has anyone ever asked?

There is a definate hole yes, but Dan's remarks seem to imply this.

And no, Monk's effect does not give him 2 attacks, it allows for an additional attack on top of his normal attack.
Click to expand...
Like I said, my question that Dan answered did not prevent him from stating that ALL monsters can resubmit a attack if they are flip flopped. This was a prime opportunity to do such, but he did not, so I dont see how it implies anything other than the information that was given in the ruling.

Its also not worded as an additional attack. There are already templates for monsters that have attacks in addition to normal attacks and they state that on their text. An additional attack means that something had to happen in order to gain another attack. Attacking "once" isnt that something.

When you activate Pot of Greed, drawing one card does not mean that you draw another card in addition to the first card you drew. The effect is "Draw 2 Cards".

Master Monk is clearly not templated with that same language. His is an effect that simply says that he can attack "twice". If anything, it is two "Normal Attacks", not, "an attack in addition too..."
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
masterwoo0 said:
What is wrong with the ruling?

When Broww's effect activates, you draw a card. The ruling is correct. You wouldnt be able to activate Bottomless Trap Hole because the last thing to happen is a card being drawn, and Goldd, Beiige, and Sillva have long been summoned before hand.

And why does everyone think Dan is new??
Click to expand...

That part is fine, it's the second part, where he said that if Goldd or Sillva were placed first on the chain, then you could activate Bottomless Trap Hole, whcih you couldn't, because the last thing to happen would be the destruction or returning to the BoD of two cards (respectively) by their effects.

And we think he's new, because he was just introduced to the Judge's List.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DarkLogicianOfCaos said:
That part is fine, it's the second part, where he said that if Goldd or Sillva were placed first on the chain, then you could activate Bottomless Trap Hole, whcih you couldn't, because the last thing to happen would be the destruction or returning to the BoD of two cards (respectively) by their effects.

And we think he's new, because he was just introduced to the Judge's List.
Click to expand...
Dan Scheidegger is new? :huh_jedi:

Player B has Beiige, Vanguard of Dark World, Broww, Huntsman of Dark World, Sillva, Warlord of Dark World and Goldd, Wu-Lord of Dark World in his hand.
Click to expand...
also let's say Player B plays Card Destruction...
Click to expand...
Broww, Silva and Gold are each sent to the Graveyard by the controlling player's Card Destruction. You don't get the return two cards, destruction or draw effect of these monsters when they are discarded by your own card effect. The only thing that happens in the end is a Special Summon, and perfect timing for Bottomless Trap Hole. Hence the reason he says to make the 1400 ATKer Chain Link 1.

No, Dan is not the new guy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Okay, now you see the convolution here. First, the question asks about when player B uses card destruct and discards his own Beiige, Broww, etc. But Dan answers as if Player A uses card destruct, because he says, "If they are smart, they will make "Broww" Chain Link 1, so that it resolves last. In that case "Bottomless Trap Hole" could not be activated because the timing is incorrect. The last thing to happen was drawing a card. "
But Dan continues his answer by saying,

"If they did order the effects so that "Goldd" was Chain Link 1, you could activate "Bottomless Trap Hole", but it would only destroy "Goldd". "
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ok iknew i have read something about this in the Spanish list.

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=8219

----- Original Message -----
From: "angel ledesma" <sam_seidel@hotmail.com>
To: "Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG UDE Judge List - Spanish"
<judge-yu-la@lists.upperdeck.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 10:38 PM
Subject: [judge-yu-la] ataque cuadruple?


Ultimamente esta pregunta esta rondando por diversos foros, la pongo para
justamente tener una respuesta que pueda estandarizarse, ya que como saben
en yugioh es un juego con cierta toque especial.

Te agradezco de antemano Gustavo.

==========
Bueno.. esta es uan duda que revise en el tema oficial de BLS:EotB y no
esta como tal, a ver que me pueden decir ustedes.

En el campo hay Final Attack Orders face down, un Book of Moon face down y
un Ceasefire boca abajo desde el turno anterior.
Solo tienes un BLS en el campo boca arriba, y el rival tiene tres monstruos
genericos sin ninguna trampa/magia en set.

Es tu turno de ataque y usas el efecto de tu "bestia" para atacar dos veces a
los monstruos del oponente.

Esta parte es la que me interesa, el orden no necesariamente debe ser asi
pero da el mismo resultado y la misma duda:
Al eliminar al segundo monstruo del oponente, activas Book of Moon para tu
BLS, despues activas Ceasefire y despues Final Attack Orders.

Duda, ¿el BLS puede atacar de nuevo dos veces? (destruyendo y atacando directo)
==========

Hola Angel,

Lo importante en este caso es que el monstruo ya declaró un ataque durante
el turno. Ponerlo boca abajo y luego voltearlo nuevamente no cambia esto,
por lo cual no puede volver a declarar un ataque.

Saludos

Gustavo Montangie
NetRep
Click to expand...

Well for those who do not speak Spanish it said that if a monster attack and is flip-fliped it won't be able to attack again.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My previous post shouldn't have included Broww. You draw a card for Broww's effect when an effect discards it, and draw an additonal one if specifically your opponent's effect discards it. He's never Special Summoned. In that case, the answer Dan gives is still correct. The last thing to happen was the drawing of a card. Incorrect timing for Bottomless Trap Hole. It pays to read these Dark World card effects closely,
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Your not an idoit. :) Sometimes we just make assumptions about card effects. I didn't even realize that Broww didn't have a Special Summoning effect till I looked more closely. And I probably wouldn't have looked that closely if you hadn't brought it up. That's what theses forums are for.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Blackscorp said:
Ok iknew i have read something about this in the Spanish list.

http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=8219



Well for those who do not speak Spanish it said that if a monster attack and is flip-fliped it won't be able to attack again.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's a problem with BLS:EotB, as it is after the supposed normal attack, which was cleared up a while back in this thread.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's not about BLS:EotB, the important part is that the game "Remember" that the monster already attacked. That makes irrelevant to compare Master Monk and any other monster, it is obvious that Master Monk is on its own class.

We can only assume(as has being stated) that his effect override the attack mechanics.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Right. It isn't about the 2nd attack that he can receive from his effect as much as it is saying that he won't be able to attack again. Which if all monster's attacks were reset by a flip-flop then it would have stated BLS-Envoy can attack again and then his second attack could be activated.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ahhhhh, sprinklings of the truth are starting to emerge...

anthonyj said:
Right. It isn't about the 2nd attack that he can receive from his effect as much as it is saying that he won't be able to attack again. Which if all monster's attacks were reset by a flip-flop then it would have stated BLS-Envoy can attack again and then his second attack could be activated.
Click to expand...
I dont know about anyone else, but that nails it down for me that a monster's normal attack does NOT reset on flip flop.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I asked that question on the List waaay back when I first started on this forums, but I can't find the response I got back from Curtis to save my life! I have posted a response to this ruling asking exactly that....what would happen if a 'normal' monster were to have been flip-flopped.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top