Ruling inconsistency, unknown stats

M

Manta

New Member
Having an idle tour of some rulings, I stumbled across this one for deck devastation virus:

Monsters with "?" for ATK are treated as having an ATK of zero for this effect, while they are in the hand or face-down.
Click to expand...


Yet, further along the line, I came across this:

"Gradius' Option" cannot be placed in your hand by the effects of "Sangan" or "Witch of the Black Forest", because "?" is undefined.
Click to expand...


Yet both effects in question specify "Monsters with an ATK of 1500 or less". According to the Japanese rulings, "?" is unknown, and hence saved from DDV, so why is there such a glaring hole in the rulnigs here?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Because UDE sometimes make up their own rules, e.g. the whole EoA Vs Exiled Force ruling. These sort of discontinuities between the UDE and Konami game are why Kevin was recently over there so hopefully they'll soon remedy these errors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's something that should be sent into the judge's list though in case they aren't aware of the inconsistancy. If you're unable to do so let me know and I'll send it in.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maonsters on the field HAVE to have a determinite ATK and DEF value as opposed to a monster in the deck. Apparently this now applies to the hand as well. It would make sense since DDV is looking at each monster drawn and having to make a determination. Sangan and Witch of the Black Forest can look elsewhere and not find what they are looking for.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
John Danker said:
It's something that should be sent into the judge's list though in case they aren't aware of the inconsistancy. If you're unable to do so let me know and I'll send it in.
Click to expand...

Since I'm not a judge I have no such ability, could you send it in if you wouldn't mind? It'd really help me and my Megarock Dragon to have it safe from the likes of DDV.

Also, Digital jedi, it's always been the case with the Japanese rulings that "?" is always unknown in the hand, as per the rulings for deck destruction virus of death. I do see what you're getting at though, but I fail to see why cards in the deck are treated differently from cards in the hand, when both are strictly NOT public knowledge.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The difference here is that you can view your hand, but, you cannot view your deck. Your hand is public knowledge to yourself, but not to others, and both players decks are not public knowedge to neither player or anyone else.

That's because cards in your hand can be defined, like any other card on your side of the field. You could set a Pot of Greed in defense mode, but, obviously you can't because you can define what card it is while in the hand, so you can set Pot of Greed in the Spell & Trap Zone instead.

The difference in the deck is nothing can be defined. It's random and that's why it isn't public knowledge. Nimble Momonga's effect could never be by the mechanics of the game to say, "When this card is destroyed and sent to the graveyard as a result of battle, Special Summon 2 Nimble Momonga(s) from the top 2 cards of your deck..." which goes against the mechanics of the game. Comparing to that of Don Turtle's effect....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
well i dont really see it as inconsistancy.

remember that when a monster is set on the field its just an empty shell.

not untill it get flipped and so forth does it have its status.

for the purpose of this example take a look at Insect what ever, the 2000/2000 insect that downgrades to 1000/1000 when there are no insects on the field.

what happens if i were to attack it with a 1500 attaker, oviously if we use DDV it would tell me its 2000 because thats the printed value but when it flips we know the actuall status is 1k/1k because at the moment there isnt any other insect type on your side of the field except for it.

kinda makes a bit of sence?

even so, somebody should send it in to get some clarafication.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm sure that's wrong because by the looks of it the effect of Arsenal Bug is a continuous one. It comes into play as soon as it appears face-up on the field, not after a battle in which it is flipped face-up.

EDIT: Yep, as said above. My computer is just really slow when it comes to typing in these reply boxes for some reason.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The inconsistency: UDE probably got the wrong ruling from Konami. But if I had to guess why the ruling is there at all, it because of the nature of effects. Witch and Sangan select cards (not targetting) out of a set. DDV affects all cards of the set. It has nothing to do with "hand and deck" differences.

"Set" is being used per its mathematical meaning.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I don't see an inconsistency here. Two different cards (Deck Devastation Virus and Sangan/Witch of the Black Forest) are looking at cards in two different places (field and hand, and Deck). An inconsistency can only occur when under the same circumstances there are two different and conflicting rulings. These are not the same circumstances.

Deck Devastation Virus checks cards on the field and in your hand. Cards with an ATK of ? are treated as 0 and thus ignored. Further, it checks cards which are drawn for the next few turns. Drawn cards are immediately a part of your hand, so it's still only checking your hand.

Sangan/Witch of the Black Forest excusively check your Deck. Monsters with an ATK/DEF of ? cannot be used with their effects because while in the Deck the value of ? is undetermined.

A general rule of thumb should come about (if not a mechanic or something) that states "While in the Deck, a monster with an ATK/DEF of ? has an ATK/DEF which is undefined, since the contencts of the Deck are not known by either player. While in your hand or face-down on your side of the field, a monster with an ATK/DEF of ? has an ATK/DEF of 0, since the contents of your hand/your side of the field are known to at least one player.". Such a ruling would make this so-called "inconsistency" make sense.

I agree, it's not much of an explanation, but if "Konami said this" then at the very least the current rulings would make sense.

Perhaps all ? are treated as 0, except for when the ? is in the Deck, in which case it would be undefined as the presence of that card in your Deck is undefined as well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top