SACRED PHOENIX OF NEPHTHYS Question

T

Tonylaudat

New Member
If my opponet attemps to Special Summon Phenoix from the graveyard via its effect, and I activate either Horn of Heaven or Solemn Judgement in responce to negate the summoning, would Phoenix be able to revive itself again? Also, if so, where would Phoenix be considered to have been destoried?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I understand that completely. If you recall, I explained both avenues of the issues of this thread a few posts back. (to the best of my understanding at this point anyway)

I'm not trying to make you upset, I'm just trying to understand, but you were one of the ones that explained how the internal effect was considered 'inherent' and would then fall into the category of being able to have that Special Summon negated by all three. So that's why I asked for clarification about the scenario again, and you responded with the quote I used in my above post.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Not mad at all, i'll be happy to try and help/clarify.

Ok let me backtrack here... part of my statements were refering to how the "current" status of this is (the RO ruling applying to SJ/HoH), and part of my statements are refering to my own personal opinion.

1. According to the Ruling:

- Extrapolating from the RO ruling (posted above) and statements from Curtis on the Judge's List, we can assume that UDE/Konami are saying that V-Lord/Phoenix etc. have "internal" Special Summon effects and you can "respond" to those Special Summons with all 3 cards (RO/SJ/HoH).

Why? because the ruling says "negate the Special Summon" and destroy the card (which would place it on the field), and if RO can do that, so can SJ/HoH.

2. My Opinion:

- Based on the mechanics of Triggers, and effect resolution, it would be impossible for either of the 3 effects (RO/SJ/HoH) to "respond" and negate the Special Summon itself.

- Only RO would be able to chain to the effect and negate it. Since the monster card would still be in the Graveyard at that point, it would not be destroyed and would not Trigger again during the next Standby Phase.

Less confusing?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
But from the Royal Opression ruling number 1:

  • There are basically 2 ways to Special Summon a monster.

    - The first way is with a Spell Card like "Monster Reborn", a Trap Card like "Call of the Haunted", or an Effect Monster like "Magical Scientist".
    -The second way is built in to the monster, and Special Summons it without activating an effect,
It's been ruled that Horn of Heaven can't negate summons by an outside effects, only the built-in effects. Well this ruling shows what the 2 ways of summons are, and shows that the built-in effects are the ones that don't need to be activated.

Vampire Lord and Phoenix are effect monster effects activating, and are therfore part of category one, the "outside effects" that Horn of Heaven can't negate.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Vampire Lord and Phoenix are effect monster effects activating, and are therfore part of category one, the "outside effects" that Horn of Heaven can't negate.
Click to expand...
No, they actually fit into both and therefore neither. That is where the discrepancy lies, because they really haven't been defined.

The only thing we have to go on is the previous ruling i quoted that states that RO can respond to the Special Summon of V-Lord and destroy it. If RO can do that, then most likely SJ/HoH can as well.

In the end, the 2 rulings contradict themselves.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, I can't find anything even remotely close to this scenario involving either "Vampire Lord" or the "Phoenix" on the Judge's List. Nor can I find any reference to their effects being considered inherent, like both Rai and Nova are saying.

If it was in an email from Curtis, then lord knows who it was sent to.

Plus, I'm not all that good at hunting down info like some of you on this forum are. Can somebody find where it says the 'reborn' effects are considered inherent?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can find the opposite:
http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=3132


Specifically paragraph 4 of the answer:

Curtis Schultz said:
You cannot use "Horn of Heaven" to negate the Special Summon of "Vampire Lord" or "Sacred Phoenix of Nephthys" when they are Special Summoned by their effects.
Click to expand...


And #8
It means that if the monster is Special Summoned by a card's effect and you don't want that monster Special Summoned, you need to stop the card effect that will cause the monster to be Special Summoned in the first place
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That was the post i was refering to.

It does say that Horn of Heaven doesn't work, which is what i was saying from the start.

The problem being that the RO ruling is incorrect, V-Lord would NOT be destroyed, because it would be in the Graveyard at the time that RO would be chained and negate the effect.

Curtis' comments contradict the logic of the RO ruling. Unfortunately and scary is that it being an actual Official Ruling, makes it stronger.

This entire problem has nothing to do with 'built-in' vs. 'outside' effects, but rather what the capabilities RO/HoH/SJ are vs. activated effects that Special Summon.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The official ruling contradicts the official ruling. But the Royal Oppression VS Vampire Lord ruling fits the Japanese ruling, and the postulate that was given by Konami so long ago.

anthonyj said:
Except you can not negate a special summon after it has occurred, negation has to happen prior to a card effect resolving.
Click to expand...
Just like you can't negate a card effect activation after someone activates a card?

Not to pick on you, but you were the most quotable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Summoning is significantly different than effect activation, however, we can compare them... we know that responding to an attempt to summon is different than responding to a successful summon.

You can only negate a card effect activation prior to the effect resolving. Once the effect successfully resolves, activation cannot be negated. In the same manner, a summon cannot be negated once fully resolved.

In the case of V-Lord/Phoenix, the entire summon occurs inside the resolution of the effect, nothing can interject that (activate during) and negate it once the effect is resolving. You can only respond afterwords once the resolution is fully complete and the summon is successful.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Definitely not feeling picked on. The english rules uphold my statement with the exception of the Royal Oppression spawned "theory" that Vampire Lord would be able to come back again. There is too much being read into the Royal Oppression ruling from ages ago. Sacred Phoenix is a current card that has quite plainly given us the information that the old Royal Oppression ruling is inaccurate and desperately in need of being removed so we can put this thread to rest.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have a question. If you can't chain Horn of Heaven/SJ to negate the Special Summoning of V. Lord or Phoenix because they can't negate the effect (and once that effect resolves, there is nothing that can be done as "the entire summon occurs inside the resolution of the effect"- novastar), then how does Jowgen+ Call of the Haunted stop the special summon from occuring?

I am asking this, because Call + Jowgen doesn't negate the effect, yet it stops the special summon from occuring (this was one of the points that I was trying to make in the first place). How can Call + Jowgen stop a special summon if "the entire summon occurs inside the resolution of the effect" and Call + Jowgen does nothing to negate or prevent the effect (since it was activated before Jowgen appeared on the field, Jowgen could not prevent the effect's activation). I can't find any ruling on Jowgen that says that is does anything to the resolution of an effect that it was not around to prevent.

The only thing that I can think of is that the Special summon of a monster does not occur within the effect that special summons it to the field. If it did, then wouldn't Call + Jowgen be powerless to stop it?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Jowgen's effect is Continuous and will be active once Call resolves. It is similar to bringing Jinzo out with Call to negate all Traps after it.

Once that effect is on, it prevents Special Summons from occuring, so you are indirectly "negating" effects like Monster Reborn etc. because it prevents these types of effects from resolving properly.

Continuous Effects, once active, exist outside of the chain block, and can affect/prevent/alter events that occur when other effects resolve. When i say that nothing can interject an effect resolution, i mean that you cannot activate an effect while an effect is resolving.

This is completely different than the HoH/SJ scenario we are discussing, as these are activated effects, that must be chained/responding directly to the event that they negate.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tonylaudat said:
I have a question. If you can't chain Horn of Heaven/SJ to negate the Special Summoning of V. Lord or Phoenix because they can't negate the effect (and once that effect resolves, there is nothing that can be done as "the entire summon occurs inside the resolution of the effect"- novastar), then how does Jowgen+ Call of the Haunted stop the special summon from occuring?

I am asking this, because Call + Jowgen doesn't negate the effect, yet it stops the special summon from occuring (this was one of the points that I was trying to make in the first place). How can Call + Jowgen stop a special summon if "the entire summon occurs inside the resolution of the effect" and Call + Jowgen does nothing to negate or prevent the effect (since it was activated before Jowgen appeared on the field, Jowgen could not prevent the effect's activation). I can't find any ruling on Jowgen that says that is does anything to the resolution of an effect that it was not around to prevent.

The only thing that I can think of is that the Special summon of a monster does not occur within the effect that special summons it to the field. If it did, then wouldn't Call + Jowgen be powerless to stop it?
Click to expand...
Please refer back to posts #27 & #28 of this thread where this question was already answered.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
In the case of V-Lord/Phoenix, the entire summon occurs inside the resolution of the effect, nothing can interject that (activate during) and negate it once the effect is resolving. You can only respond afterwords once the resolution is fully complete and the summon is successful.
Click to expand...
This is the way I look upon it as well, SJ and HoH can't be activated here because the summon happens in the resolution of an effect, so only something which negates the effect, and was, as such, chained to the effect's activation could negate the summon. (Jowgen is of course an exception due to being a continuous)
Since HoH & SJ have no abilities against effects they cannot be used for these types of summon (SJ can be used to negate a spell or trap card which just happens to involve a special summon in it's resolution but that's not trying to negate the summon but rather the spel/trap).
Think to yourselves; "Can I use HoH/SJ against Cyber Jar summons? Why?"
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
novastar said:
Summoning is significantly different than effect activation, however, we can compare them... we know that responding to an attempt to summon is different than responding to a successful summon.

You can only negate a card effect activation prior to the effect resolving. Once the effect successfully resolves, activation cannot be negated. In the same manner, a summon cannot be negated once fully resolved.

In the case of V-Lord/Phoenix, the entire summon occurs inside the resolution of the effect, nothing can interject that (activate during) and negate it once the effect is resolving. You can only respond afterwords once the resolution is fully complete and the summon is successful.
Click to expand...
Magic Jammer can negate the activation after it's already happened. Why can't a summon be negated after it's happened?

I see this point as up to Konami's discretion, and not logically against other rulings.
anthonyj said:
The english rules uphold my statement with the exception of the Royal Oppression spawned "theory" that Vampire Lord would be able to come back again. There is too much being read into the Royal Oppression ruling from ages ago. Sacred Phoenix is a current card that has quite plainly given us the information that the old Royal Oppression ruling is inaccurate and desperately in need of being removed so we can put this thread to rest.
Click to expand...
Let's ignore the fact that the Japanese rulings match up with this?

The rulings against my theory are:
1) An explanation/example.
2) Judge list rulings from Curtis Schultz, who also tells us that Fusion Gate is an ignition-like effect.

The first category has been shown to be somewhat unreliable, and the second category is Curtis giving the "obvious" answer, because no one has ever bothered to ask Konami, because no one at UDE saw the need for such a "simple" question.

Sacred Phoenix of Nephthys (for linking purposes) doesn't have any rulings on its page related to this.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Magic Jammer can negate the activation after it's already happened. Why can't a summon be negated after it's happened?

I see this point as up to Konami's discretion, and not logically against other rulings.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only prior to the effect resolving, which is what i was stating in my post.

By comparison, you can negate a summon attempt (similar to activation), but once fully resolved to the field (similar to effect resolution), it cannot be negated anymore.

Do you see what i am saying?

I agree, the RO rulings and Curtis appear to be somewhat unreliable, due to inconsistancy. However, your theory is just as unreliable, because it is inconsistant as well with 99% of all other cases. While the JPN ruling might match up with it, it would be nice to know why...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I know we keep refering back to the Japanese rulings here, but my questoin is why? It seems to me the least refined rulings are from Japan, as there an erroneous ruling is less likely to be questioned and complicated rulings are not put through the ringer like they are in this language.

I put less stock in the Japanese rulings for thats simple fact. I think if were going to make a determination regarding a conflicting set of rulings then the asia set of rulings should all but ignored.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top