SACRED PHOENIX OF NEPHTHYS Question

[Tonylaudat]

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?

 

[anthonyj]

I referred to Last Will and Fusion Gate as two cards that were not chainable, yet could not have their Summons negated by Royal Oppression. That was all. I also posted those before referring to them.
Under Fusion Gate, on the JERP:
http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/puppiy/r...s5/Field_19.htm
◇この「フュージョン・ゲート」の効果による融合召喚にチェーンはできません。
"It is not possible to chain to a special summon by Fusion Gate."

This example has no activation and resolution, unlike Vampire Lord's effect.

「神の宣告」「王宮の弾圧」で特殊召喚を無効にする事はできません。
"It is not possible for God's Declaration (Solemn Judgement) or Oppression of the Court (Royal Oppression, or Imperial Oppression) to negate a special summon by Fusion Gate."

Last Will: Dang it, I can't remember where my "Last Will" post was, and the Search function considers both words too common. Stupid word limits.

Claiming that the fact that you can not negate a Special Summon by Fusion Gate or Last Will gives any kind of support to Vampire Lord being able to be negated after he has hit the field is insane. What do those have to do with each other?

All that means is that you can't negate those Special Summons. That's all.

Explanation. Explanations, on the UDE site, have a higher percent of error, such as with the Nephthys VS Divine Wrath ruling.
And exactly how common were the self-summon monsters when this article was written?
Logic of non-elimination. Faulty.

Does the Japanese ruling for Nephthys vs. Divine Wrath differ from the English ruling?

The explanation on the UDE site clarifies that you can not use Horn of Heaven to negate a special summon from an effect that creates a chain. That is specifically referring to Vampire Lord and Phoenix.

 

[anthonyj]

Dark Necrofear can also be negated by Royal Oppression, and it would be considered "destroyed". Is this an illegal squeezing? And if it is not, do you believe that the ONLY reason that this is different is because Konami Said So?
But then, did Konami say so?

Logic of questionable assumptions. Faulty.
As I've REPEATEDLY stated, the card has hit the field. The game simply forgets that when its summon is negated. Just like it forgets that a magic card was activated when its activation is negated (Magic Jammer VS magic counters, if I remember correctly).

When you summon a monster, the proper procedure isn't to show the card to your opponent and ask if he wants to negate your summon. You place the card on the field, and THEN ask if he wants to negate the summon.

Dark Necrofear isn't using the chain it is being summoned from your hand and thus is exactly that type of Special Summon that Horn of Heaven negates. Royal Oppression negates the summon at the exact same point and the monster is not considered properly summoned if negated by either one. I fail to see how this has anything to do with Vampire Lord's summoning himself from the grave by his effect.

Your procedure for summoning a monster may be how it looks while playing the game but the monster is not considered "On The Field" until after the point where Horn of Heaven or one of the other negators would have their proper timing. Since we know that continuous effects are active once they are "On The Field" and obviously Jinzo would not be able to be negated by a trap once he was "On The Field". We all know this and nobody disputes that mechanic.

Every ruling we have for Royal Oppression goes to the trouble of stating point blank that it must be chained to the effect that is Special Summoning the monster. Unless the summon is built into the monster and does not start a chain. So what I am asking for is any support that Vampire Lord or Sacred Phoenix are negated differently in the Japanese rulings. Not whether Fusion Gate or Last Will is. We've covered in a different thread that Last Will is not chainable in the Japanese rulings and does not summon in the damage step. Which our English ruling goes to the trouble to state specifically that it does work in the damage step.

Let's keep this about Vampire Lord and Royal Oppression.

 

[Digital Jedi]

All I have to say is:

​

 

[John Danker]

<laffin & laffin> No, it won't die, why should it? I don't have a problem with good debate unless people start becoming childish or demaning while doing so. Many times it's the good debates that lead to in depth research and study of the rulings....which is what we like to be all about.

 

[anthonyj]

You are confused. I did that for the Bait Doll debate. I even posted the rulings in the Bait Doll debate BEFORE I started referring to them.

I am not confused. I was referring to:

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.

Thus I was asking you about the Japanese ruling and the "postulate" that was given by Konami.

 

[anthonyj]

Royal Oppresion has two SEPARATE effects. Royal Oppression's effect of negating a summoning EFFECT is the proper analogy to this Divine Wrath ruling. Divine Wrath can't negate Summons, only the effects that cause them. To say that this ruling supercedes the Royal Oppression ruling is to say that the Royal Oppression ruling refers to Royal Oppression's effect of negating the source of the Special Summon.

[Re: Vampire Lord] When you Special Summon "Vampire Lord" with his effect, your opponent can negate the Special Summon with "Royal Oppression", but the "Vampire Lord" will have been destroyed by your opponent's card effect ("Royal Oppression") and will be Special Summoned again during your next Standby Phase.

The ruling clearly states that Royal Oppression is negating the Special Summon, and not the effect of the Special Summon.

Logic of wrong analogy. Faulty.

Your entire argument here seems to be that UDE's explanation of how Royal Oppression operates is in error. Yet I see no reference to the Japanese ruling that allows for your alternate explanation. If your interpretation of the Royal Oppression effect being able to negate the Special Summon after it had resolved were accurate then Horn of Heaven would work the same way. Is there a Japanese ruling for Horn of Heaven being able to negate Vampire Lord or Phoenix coming back from the grave? If not then I have to assume your entire argument rests in the non-clarified phrasing of Edo's statement, and the ruling that Vampire Lord would come back if negated by Royal Oppression when returning from the grave.

If this is the case then we at least must agree that either ruling #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, such as "Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning" or "Dark Necrofear". "Royal Oppression" can negate both of these types of Special Summon. In the first case, you chain the activation of "Royal Oppression"'s effect to the activation of the Spell, Trap, or Monster Card's effect, and negate the effect. In the second case, right before the monster is Special Summoned, you can activate the effect of "Royal Oppression" to negate the Special Summon (the same procedure that you use for "Horn of Heaven" or "Solemn Judgment").

or ruling #10:

When "Vampire Lord" is Special Summoned by its effect, you can activate the effect of "Royal Oppression" to negate the Special Summon and destroy "Vampire Lord". If your "Vampire Lord" is destroyed in this way by the effect of a "Royal Oppression" card controlled by your opponent, then "Vampire Lord" was destroyed by a card controlled by your opponent, and is Special Summoned during your next Standby Phase.

is incorrect. My question is what evidence do you have that ruling #1 is wrong? What Japanese ruling contradicts #1?

 

[Darklight]

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?

Just check the no. 5 roulin ofSacred Phoenix of Nephthys, you can use it, but you just stall a little its "rebirth".

 

[skey23]

Ruling #5 is ONLY referring to when the "Phoenix" is summoned from the hand NOT when it's effect is activated from the Graveyard, during the Standby Phase. We had already established and thrown out that ruling within the 1st 2 pages of this thread (I believe). I know there are A LOT of posts on this thread, but please take the time to read the entire thing before posting information that has already been discussed a looooong time ago.

Thanks.

 

[Raijinili]

I specifically stated that the game "forgets" that the monster hits the field.

If the card is not destroyed on the field, then is it destroyed in the hand? The card is destroyed on the field but it forgets that it was on the field. Vampire Lord wouldn't care about that, because while it forgets it was on the field, it was still destroyed because it had physically left the graveyard.

 

[novastar]

Vampire Lord wouldn't care about that, because while it forgets it was on the field, it was still destroyed because it had physically left the graveyard.

It just doesn't make any sense (but when does Konami ever?)

Lets use your thinking, and UDE/JERP RO ruling to view the possibile scenarios.

1.) IF you were to chain RO to V-Lord's effect to negate it, you can't possibly destroy V-Lord because he is still in the Graveyard, and the effect hasn't even begun to resolve.

So that doesn't work to support your thinking...

2.) IF you wait until after the effect of V-Lord resolves to "negate the Special Summon" with RO, the timing is completely off, since the summon is already complete and successful. This would be timing for BTH, or any other card with "successful" timing.

So that doesn't work to support your thinking...moving along...

3.) You can "quick respond" as you once put it, but where? during the resolution of V-Lord's effect? This would break the "You can't activate an effect within the resolution of another effect" rule. In every single other case, other than this this one, it doesn't work.

So to sum it up, your only support is one RO ruling (which is old), and the logic in #3 that is completely contrary to a common mechanic that has existed for a long time.

I'm having a really hard time buying that brand.

*Even if you are gonna say that RO can negate the summon using the timing in #2, that is also completely contradictory to what we have been told concerning the timing during a summon of any kind.

 

[anthonyj]

I specifically stated that the game "forgets" that the monster hits the field.

If the card is not destroyed on the field, then is it destroyed in the hand? The card is destroyed on the field but it forgets that it was on the field. Vampire Lord wouldn't care about that, because while it forgets it was on the field, it was still destroyed because it had physically left the graveyard.

So is your entire argument that the Japanese Royal Oppression vs. Vampire Lord ruling is the same as the English Royal Oppression vs. Vampire Lord ruling? If so I'll just chalk the last 2 dozen posts up to wasted time. If the Japanese ruling was in error than of course the English one would likely be as well. As evidenced with Dimension Fusion vs. XYZ.

 

[Raijinili]

So is your entire argument that the Japanese Royal Oppression vs. Vampire Lord ruling is the same as the English Royal Oppression vs. Vampire Lord ruling?

Where the heck did I ever say that?

If so I'll just chalk the last 2 dozen posts up to wasted time.

Like you cared anyway.

If the Japanese ruling was in error than of course the English one would likely be as well.

First of all, Konami is never wrong, by the law of "The Creator makes the premises of the game". Without the proper premises, you do not get the proper conclusions.

It's very arrogant to say that they have the wrong conclusions, since they define the premises.

As evidenced with Dimension Fusion vs. XYZ.

And exactly WHEN was there a Japanese ruling about Dimension Fusion and XYZ?

 

[anthonyj]

It's very arrogant to say that they have the wrong conclusions, since they define the premises.
And exactly WHEN was there a Japanese ruling about Dimension Fusion and XYZ?

This mystery has been solved. It seems that the Japanese text for the
XYZ-monsters was revised before Magician's Force was released here. So
we've always had the "modern" wording on the cards.



The Dimension Fusion vs. XYZ ruling referred to the original XYZ text
(which we never had). But the ruling based on the original text was
still "on the books" even after the text was changed.



This has been fixed. Case closed.

So, this doesn't state pretty clearly that Konami not only had a ruling but that after the text was Errata'd the ruling was still "on the books" to be translated into English and give us problems?

Look if you want to believe that Konami is incapable of making mistakes I guess that is your right. The fact is The Creator does not personally write these rulings and hand them down so it is possible for someone to put something up that isn't accurate. It is also possible for things to be "fixed" at a later date when it is determined that the direction that is being taken means things need to be "clarified". Yugioh was not developed as a game with all the rulings laid out and tested to create a proper and smoothly flowing game. It was created card first, make rules to fit afterward. As such I must suggest that your blind faith that Konami has never and can never make a mistake is misguided. Once we have been given "clear evidence" that this is what The Creator of the game wants (Legendary Fisherman being a great example of the "no better reason why just BKSS) then I'm happy to accept that is what the card does. I'm still waiting for ANY JAPANESE RULING TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ARGUMENT HERE. But like I said, so far the only thing you have posted that has any bearing on this discussion is that the Japanese ruling is the same as the English ruling. Sorry, that is not clear evidence (old ruling, outdated and missed as a minor triviality, not worth their time and attention to simply give us an answer "yes this is how it works, or no this was not correct"). We have a heavy track record of egos not wanting to admit fault nor give complete information from the powers that be. If Kevin's "Priority" article was wrong wouldn't it have been fairly simple to point out the incorrect points, have them rewritten and publish the #$%^* thing?

I do care about this topic since every judge at a tournament and every player who plays the game is in a bad position of having to wait for clear evidence that one side or the other is correct. That sucks for the players who are trying to play the game correctly and is truly a terrible position to leave the judges in but I expect no more than that from UDE or Konami. The rules and response to questions in this game are a travesty. The driving force in this game has been to sell product to children too young to play a game with this much complexity, and as long as that is the goal and the management of both Konami and UDE have other "pet projects" that make them nowhere near the amount of money that Yugioh does but command much more of their time and effort I expect we will see nothing else. Again WHAT JAPANESE RULINGS ARE YOU REFERRING TO TO BACK UP YOUR POSITION?

 

[anthonyj]

Back in April (or about 4000 posts ago as you put it) you first argued:

About Royal Oppression in the Damage Step: The JERP says that Royal Oppression can't be activated in the Damage Step. Updated 2004/7/7 and 2005/1/24.

About Royal Oppression VS Vampire Lord/Nephthys:
Royal Oppression has two opportunities to negate these two cards. One when the effect is activated (in a chain, such as with Divine Wrath) and one when the effect resolves (such as with Horn of Heaven). The Vampire Lord and Royal Oppression ruling is for the second case, while the Nephthys ruling is for the first case.

Since they don't need to be on the field when destroyed, they can just special summon themselves again for the first place.

I could say, "Honestly, I don't see how this is so hard," but then I'd be lying. But from the beginning, we've been told that it's only monsters special summoned from outside effects that couldn't be negated by Horn of Heaven.

And then again you state:

No, the Divine Wrath ruling does not prove this. The Divine Wrath ruling was ruled for the specific case where the EFFECT of the special summon was negated. Negating the effect and negating the special summon... darn, lost my words. Well, they're two different things.

Here's an example. You have two Royal Oppression on the field. Your opponent activates Vampire Lord's effect. You chain the effect of one Royal Oppression to it. He chains Mystical Space Typhoon to destroy that Royal Oppression. Since you have another Royal Oppression, and since it can't negate the effect without chaining directly onto the effect (counter-trap rulings), you have to wait until VLord's effect is resolving. Then you activate the second effect, to negate the special summon itself (this is not chaining).

and again

You are assuming that summoning is that simple. Apparently, Konami decided it was not. And you say that you can't use Horn of Heaven or Solemn Judgement on Vampire Lord. We've had this argument before. If I remember correctly, you conceded that Konami allowed them to negate special-summons by effects such as Nephthys' or VLord's, but you believed they were wrong. I am trying to make sense of their game while you're trying to make a game with your logic.

I'm not sure when anybody aGreed with you on this but it most certainly has not been proven as every ruling I've seen states specifically the opposite. But you continue:

The last part is NOT chaining because there was no effect to chain to. Royal Oppression would start a new chain.
Konami NEVER NEVER NEVER said that effects going on the chain block were preventing the special summon from being negated. Konami ALWAYS said that Horn of Heaven could not negate special summons made by OUTSIDE effects. ALWAYS. Not ONCE did they say that you couldn't negate a special summon because a card was resolving. I'll delete my account and leave if you can prove they did, even once.
As I said, Konami has ALWAYS said that the reason was otherwise.
Also, there's NO ruling that says that Horn of Heaven and Solemn Judgement can't be used on a monster special summoning itself. NONE.
I am not stupid. I easily know more than twice the rulings you do. Thank you.

I believe you stated recently

Logic of non-elimination. Faulty.

thanks I couldn't have said it better myself.
Then we go down a very dark road:

Well, I don't know about you, but I'm sick of him arguing against me with arrogance. Especially since he also uses bad logic.
I would not mind novastar or John Danker doing that, as I respect them in their rulings knowledge, but I also don't expect them to consistently use bad logic. Or arrogance, for that matter.
And that is the pivotal point. You and novastar assume that summons by effect are that simple. I try to fit in the Royal Oppression/Vampire Lord ruling in my understanding, and justify that with the explanation given every time people asked why you couldn't use Horn of Heaven on Monster Reborn.

Talk about arrogant. You pretty much let everybody know you believe you are above the common man on this board. You know more and hate being questioned by those you deem inferior. Well as I've watched everyone on this board make a mistake (you certainly have a few yourself) from time to time I would ask you to keep this attitude in check during these discussions. I would prefer not to see anyone treated like that.

Okay next we jump out of the blue into:

And in a burst of inspiration, I went looking for a ruling to prove the "outside effect" reason. Under Fusion Gate, on the JERP:
http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/puppiy/r...s5/Field_19.htm

◇この「フュージョン・ゲート」の効果による融合召喚にチェーンはできません。
"It is not possible to chain to a special summon by Fusion Gate."

This shows that there is no activation and resolution, unlike Vampire Lord's effect.

「神の宣告」「王宮の弾圧」で特殊召喚を無効にする事はできません。
"It is not possible for God's Declaration (Solemn Judgement) or Oppression of the Court (Royal Oppression, or Imperial Oppression) to negate a special summon by Fusion Gate."

And I KNOW that Curtis just said Fusion Gate was "ignition-like". As I emailed to him, WWE doesn't play that way. As I also said, I know the games are not a good source, but it takes a lot of effort to make a mistake like that. No response yet. Which means he's reconsidering?

Alright so just wanted to remind everyone of your previous argument on this topic and make sure I didn't miss anything. So the only other argument I've seen from you with this is your fundamental belief that Horn of Heaven and Solumn Judgment "should" be able to negate a returning Vampire Lord from the graveyard (which they do not). Show me a Japanese ruling that specifically says they do and I'll leave it be. As for the Fusion Gate ruling that only proves Curtis is a good source of incorrect rulings. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Vampire Lord in any way. Again I think you put it perfectly.

Logic of wrong analogy. Faulty.

Since this was posted to the Judge's board back in April I'm well aware we won't be getting any quick answer to this fairly straight forward question. I just wanted to make sure you understood that what we have got printed supports my argument. I have seen nothing translated from Japanese to support yours. Even Curtis confirmed this in his private e-mail that Vampire Lord should not return. But until they delete the Royal Oppression vs. Vampire Lord ruling both in Japan and here, I'm sure you will not be convinced. Not saying you are wrong as we recently saw a great case for the english rulings being absolutely wrong. In which case I'm happy either way. I just hate the conflicts both being "posted rulings" as it makes the game play incorrect one way or the other.

 

[Raijinili]

I just realized there was a whole page of posts I missed.

I'll get to it later. I am seriously getting bored by this discussion.

 

[John Danker]

Getting bored? Just NOW?....hmmm....I became bored with this discussion quite sometime ago. The mass majority of it has been two people debating the topic just for the sake of debate. It's obvious the thread is getting anywhere and it's become a contest rather than a thread for the betterment of the game or to provide information. Certainly we all have better things to do with our time and energy? If this thread becomes any closer to blatantly insulting or gets anymore personal I'll be forced to lock it down. Please continue to conduct your "debate" if you insist, however, "I" insist that you do so while giving others respect and dignity.

 

[Fury]

I dont know the Japanese ruling for Fusion Gate but the thing is in general there are 2 kinds of effects: continous and non-continous(instant).
If Fusion Gate is instant then its sub-type is Ignition Effect which means that I can chain MST or RoyalO to it and prevent the Fusion Summon by negating the effect. (Even if the effect is instant, the card itself is continous so destroing it with MST negates its effect also.)
If Fusion Gate is continous then my opponent doesnt activates any effect he just declares that he will Fusion Summon a monster. In this case I can use Horn or SolmenJ or RoyalO to negate the summoning.
According to the English text it seem continous to me thus you can play Fusion Monsters like monsters from your hand if you have its parts ready. (that's subjective)
If neither of the above is true than i'm sure that the rule is without LOGIC. They can make such but I'll never play by them.

---

Cards for summon negation:

1. Horn of Heaven can negate ANY summon of a monster from HAND ONLY.
2. Solemn Judgment can negate ANY summon of a monster from HAND ONLY. And it can negate and destroy ANY spell/trap activated.
3. Royal Oppression can negate SPECIAL summon of a monster from HAND ONLY. And it can negate spell/trap/monster effects that involve SPECIAL summonig of a monster.

The timing for negating a summon is only correct if it happens from hand - that is considered as an ACTION and you respond to it. In this case these cards are ALWAYS chain link 1 except if a Chain Energy is in play because its effect is not optional.

Edit: HAND ONLY is not entirely true because Metalzoa and such are Special Summoned from the DECK. These are only a few exceptions and maybe nobody uses them anyway.

 

[Raijinili]

I typed four pages on the day of my last post, and never looked at it again. It's over. I don't care anymore. So I might as well come clean.

This debate was a farce. That's right, the Japanese ruling has always had TWO conditions, non-chainability and inherent effect. It's on God's Declaration or Horn of Heaven, on the JERP, that Revival Slime can't be negated.

While I knew few people would be willing or able to check the JERP, I was surprised when NO ONE noticed this in the link to Edo's page:

This is because the Special Summons themselves take place during the RESOLUTION of the effect, so there's no gap for you to actually Chain the effect.

There's also the fact that (I think) I brought up timeline when discussing the changes to Solemn Judgement. No one seemed to notice that Vampire Lord was also in DL4...

And again, Revival Slime. That was already out in English when this ruling was released.

 

[skey23]

Arrrrgggh!...You evil little man! I'm gonna have to start keeping my eye on you, along with that Danker fellow as well!

 

[Raijinili]

No need. I don't think I'll be posting anymore. Into Riviera now.

But I won't delete my account... because I don't know how to. Crap. Well, that killed something.