miracle fusion versus fusion substitutes

W

woltarr

New Member
can i RFG 1 fusion substitute from my grave as replacement for one creature when using miracle fusion?

thank you very much

woltarr
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I don't call it "speculation" when 'Miracle Fusion' has the EXACT SAME wording as 'Polymerization'.

Miracle Fusion
Normal Spell
Remove from play, from your side of the field or your Graveyard, Fusion Material Monsters that are listed on a Fusion Monster Card that includes "Elemental Hero" in its card name, and Special Summon that Fusion Monster from your Fusion Deck. (This Special Summon is treated as a Fusion Summon).

Polymerization
Normal Spell
Send Fusion Material Monsters that are listed by a Fusion Monster Card from your hand or your side of the field to the Graveyard, and Special Summon the Fusion Monster from your Fusion Deck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Though there are no "official" rulings on it, there has not been anything saying otherwise either, the general concensus "as I know it" is that for the time being it is possible to use Fusion Subs.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, one good point brought up on the other thread was that "Polymerization" says 'listed by' and the other two say 'listed on'. That very well could be a key difference in how they are played.

And Jason_C, if you'll recall, the other thread got locked because a few people got a little too hot headed towards each other, not because of the discussion itself.

If I had to rule on it today, I would say yes, they can be used simply for the lack of rulings associated with "Polymerization", plus the fact that we all know you CAN use them with both "Polymerization" and "Fusion Gate".

Of course, I could be completely wrong, but won't know it until the correct rulings are posted.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hurray. Definitely not a record for the wait. But long enough to be extremely frustrating. You'd have thought this would have been a top of mind question when CRV was released (or the question seemed so incredibly obvious in Japan that it was never even asked).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
anthonyj said:
Hurray. Definitely not a record for the wait. But long enough to be extremely frustrating. You'd have thought this would have been a top of mind question when CRV was released (or the question seemed so incredibly obvious in Japan that it was never even asked).
Click to expand...

well, it HAS been asked multiple times in the judge list, they just didn't answer because they were waiting for Konami's confirmation... and you know that they won't acknowledge "1+1=2" unless Konami says so.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cropz said:
well, it HAS been asked multiple times in the judge list, they just didn't answer because they were waiting for Konami's confirmation... and you know that they won't acknowledge "1+1=2" unless Konami says so.
Click to expand...

Well technically they have acknowledged 1+1=37, 12, 7, 44 and/or possibly 98 without Konami's say so often enough that I think they are probably better off with a more cautious approach. Though I can't imagine communication is so difficult between UDE and Konami that this would take so long to get an answer. :)

Nevertheless I'm quite happy that our logical Reasoning, speculation, or whatever else someone would like to call it has been confirmed officially now.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top