Old Ruling: Summoner Of Illusions

B

bishop

Thief of Always
I cannot find a retraction/correction/alternative to an old ruling concerning Summoner of Illusions and Fiend Skull Dragon. I was under the impression that it had, indeed, been changed from the original ruling, but I cannot find it anywhere.

The original ruling was the Fiend Skull Dragon negated the effect of Summoner of Illusions and was not destroyed at the end of the turn. There has been a lot of controversy over this ruling as of late, but I still cannot find that this ruling has been made obsolete. :(

Personally, I understand the ruling as is and I think changing it would be a shame, but I'd like to confirm this somehow. :D

If anyone can find it, please pass it along to me.

Thanks!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
masterwoo0 said:
I would say that based upon the fact that Fiend Skull Dragon negates flip effects, it would seem that you couldn't even summon FSD, as it would destroy itself by its own effect by negating its own summon.
Click to expand...

This was my original argument early on....then bishop pointed out the paticular text on Fiend Skull Dragon of...."negates the effects of all flip effect monsters..."

So it just doesn't negate the flip effect...but ALL effects of flip effect monsters. It can't negate an effect that has already resolved obviously...so what is left is the last part of the text....weather it be a lingering effect or a condition is yet to be determined.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ahh yes ... this is starting to all come back to me know. This argument was something that was brought up before and it triggers all kinds of memories (fond ones, really) about this little ruling.

Like most effects (though not all, as I seem to notice), you have the ability to attempt to resolve as much of the effect as you can if possible. In this case, the Fusion Monster is already summoned to the field. That much is already done prior to the conclusion of the effect of Summoner of Illusions. The "rest of the story" (okay okay! it's an effect, not a story) is not capable of resolving because Fiend Skull Dragon is already on the field negating the "effect" of Summoner of Illusions. It's already on the field. (Did that sound redundant?) However, since it doesn't necessarily negate Flip Effects but any effect of a Flip Effect Monster, it would negate the rest of the effect by virtue of being on the field.

Granted, it defies half a dozen other rulings, but I do believe that was the original logic that we were provided.

Gods, I despise this game. LOL! (kidding, really)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bishop said:
The only other way that I could see this ... is that Summoner of Illusions summons the Fusion Monster. Then it applies the condition. If this particular logic is followed, then the effect of Summoner of Illusions would be negated prior to being able to "effect" the Fusion Monster with a condition since the Fusion Monster would have to be on the field prior to having the condition applied.

Great. Now I'm thinking outloud again. Wonderful.
Click to expand...
That is why i brought up the Jinzo vs. Role of Life ruling.

Jinzo is Special Summoned first, then given the 800 ATK boost, then his effect becomes active, but can't negate the boost since it already resolved.

The idea being that you can't "cut-in"
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hmm ... Though the original rulings was that it didn't get the boost. Then we changed that to Jinzo did get the boost.

Curiously (I'll check later, I'm leaving to go home now), I wonder what the ruling on this is for Japan ... and I wonder what their logic is for however it is there. novastar? Can you find out?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
And the defiance is where the arguement lies, so i definately can see both sides.

Just remember bishop... you can always play Marvel ;)
Click to expand...
I LOVE the VS System (until MMK came out -- stupid changing game rules -- sounds like Yugioh, not VS).

I seem to recall that one of my quotes of the month was: We can always play Marvel. ;) This was exactly the reason why I was saying that. No one can seem to keep rulings straight because those that are supposed to keep rulings straight aren't even sure how the rulings work.

And we're supposed to TEST on this stuff? *grumble* :mad:

I'm going home now. :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh they haven't changed much of the core game rules in VS, just terminologies mostly for clearity.

Yeah, it most definately was one of your quotes of the month, i figured i'd post it for old times sake ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maybe....just maybe ....we could get out of them if Summoner of Illusion's last line of text is a condition or a lingering effect. That would explain the ruling....or just confirm it's wrong.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I really don't have much to add to this, other than that its purely amazing to see the "Gods of Rulings" discussing issues. I think I learned like three things just reading this thread. Granted I have a personal interest since its Fiend Skull Dragon, but I guess I'm still seeing things like a Jizno/Call of the Haunted issue. But its different, now that I'm reworking how things are resolving in my head. 8^D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jinzo/Call of the Haunted was exactly the thing I thought about on the way home. We interrupt effects all the time with that combo. However, there is, I believe, some kind of divine edict that allows some things to work that would defy logic in other situations.

Getting anything out of "them" is the trick. What I see answered on the Judge's List is -- generally, not all the time. no blanket statments implied here -- rulings that a six year old could answer with a bit of common sense and logic applied to the situation. I don't really see anything that is earthshattering coming off that List. Admittedly, I don't read every single thread anymore, but that's more about time and priorities than interest.

Gods of Rulings? Bwahahaha ... more like Archfiends of Rulings ... ;)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
Oh they haven't changed much of the core game rules in VS, just terminologies mostly for clearity.
Click to expand...
And added a whole new section to the playing field -- thereby changing the WHOLE game for all practical purposes -- that absolutely adds nothing to the game that is worthwhile. Strictly my own opinion of course. VS reeks of the same "let's put our finger in things and mess it up" like Yu-gi-oh! does. Makes me wonder if there isn't some crossfeed there between departments.

Okay. However ... this is completely offtopic and I admit I shouldn't have added it. We can take this part to the VS forum if we wish to continue it -- though I don't have much to add. LOL!

Sorry ... Back to Summoner and Dragon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
bishop said:
Jinzo/Call of the Haunted was exactly the thing I thought about on the way home. We interrupt effects all the time with that combo.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this combo doesn't actually 'interrupt' any effects, it only stops/prevents those that have not finished resolving. Aren't we trying to determine two things here?

1. Is "Summoner"s destruction effect 'lingering' or a condition.
2. Has that effect been completely resolved by the time "Fiend Skull Dragon" hits the field.

If we answer both of these, then the 'true' ruling 'should' be obvious.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The one thing that I think is a little different with Jinzo/CoTH is that that combo is we're not negating things in the middle of resolution. We're either A)Letting Jinzo hit the field and when CoTH is destroyed, its effect is negated or B)Letting Jinzo hit the field in a chain to a trap being activated, and thus interrupting the resolution of the trap.

FSD/SOI I think is a little different, since we're trying to figure out if FSD is indeed hitting the field and negating the resolution midway though (which I think is a rare instance indeed) or is FSD negating a condition that was applied to it when the action occurs at a later date.

Oops, I think I may have just restated everything before.... 8^D

....ARE there any instances of effects getting negated during the middle of its resolution?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jinzo/Call would be a still valid combo to compare this to, as Call's "second" effect of destroying the monster it summoned if it's destroyed or removed from the field. Once Jinzo is summoned by Call, then Jinzo negates the "destruction" effect. Call = SOI, Jinzo = FSD
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OKShadow said:
Jinzo/Call would be a still valid combo to compare this to, as Call's "second" effect of destroying the monster it summoned if it's destroyed or removed from the field. Once Jinzo is summoned by Call, then Jinzo negates the "destruction" effect. Call = SOI, Jinzo = FSD
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure this works because "Call" is 'linked' to the monster it 'reborns', if you will. "Summoner" does not 'link'. "Summoner" does not NEED to stay on the field to have it's destruction effect applied. The "Jinzo" scenario works the way it does because of the 'link' needed between "Call" and the monster it brings back. Plus, with the "Call"/"Jinzo" scenario, "Jinzo"s effect to negate "Call" happens AFTER "Call" has resolved. There is no question there. And everybody seems to agree that "Call" does resolve before "Jinzo" 'breaks the link', so to speak.

Like I stated above, there are two issues that NEED to be 'officially' answered before the 'true' ruling can be determined.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top