Sakuretsu Armor and position changes.

[skey23]

Ok, I had to ask here sooner or later since I can't find the stoopid Judge List archive and I still don't have access to the Level 3 Judge's List.....

P1 attacks P2.
P2 activates "Sakuretsu Armor".
P1 responds with "Desert Sunlight" or any other card that would put their monster into face-up Defense Position.
P2 does not respond.
P1 does not respond.
Resove chain.
Monster(s) go to defense.

Now, will the monster that attacked still be destroyed by "Sakuretsu Armor"?

Thanks.

 

[Tiso]

It is not that it needs it to be face-up on the field. To be more precise, it needs to resolve and actually negate the attack. At which point the LP will be reduced by whatever current ATK the monster had. Wildheart vs. Negate Attack proves this. Just because you activate Negate Attack, if it is not able to actually stop the attack, it will not end the battle phase.

 

[skey23]

You can only activate this card when your opponent declares an attack.

<opponent may chain to the activation such as Desert Sunlight>

Destroy the attacking monster.

What attacking monster?

Ha! That's 2 Level 3 Judges in agreeance (sp?)! So that means we're right! Ha! Ha! Ha!

right? :confused_

 

[masterwoo0]

I see this as a situation of "which resolves first".

If you are attacking with a monster, and your opponent responds with sakuretsu armor, and you chain desert sunlight, desert sunlight will resolve first, causing the attacking monster to go to defense position, halting the attack.

Sakuretsu armor will then resolve and attempt to destroy an "attacking monster", but there isnt one.

The other way around would be if the Turn Player had more than one monster face-up in attack and the opponent responded with zero gravity and chained sakuretsu armor. Sakuretsu armor would still resolve correctly because the attacking monster is still "attacking" and then zero gravity resolves and changes the remaining monsters to defense.

 

[Tiso]

Ha! That's 2 Level 3 Judges in agreeance (sp?)! So that means we're right! Ha! Ha! Ha!

right? :confused_

That is what I got from what he said about it is that if it is in Defense Position, what attacking monster?

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

It is not that it needs it to be face-up on the field. To be more precise, it needs to resolve and actually negate the attack. At which point the LP will be reduced by whatever current ATK the monster had. Wildheart vs. Negate Attack proves this. Just because you activate Negate Attack, if it is not able to actually stop the attack, it will not end the battle phase.

"Negate the attack and end the batlle phase" That's one effect.

Magic Cylinder has 2 effects, one is negating the attack, the other is inflicting damage.
With wildheart neither one can go through because a trap card cannot check the ATK of a card that is unaffected by Trap Cards.

Sakuretsu's armor effect is really "To destroy the targetted monster." Konami like to keep card text concise if possible, and so "Target the attacking monster" and "Destroy the targetted monster" are concatenated into a single sentence.

 

[Tiso]

I see this as a situation of "which resolves first".

If you are attacking with a monster, and your opponent responds with sakuretsu armor, and you chain desert sunlight, desert sunlight will resolve first, causing the attacking monster to go to defense position, halting the attack.

Sakuretsu armor will then resolve and attempt to destroy an "attacking monster", but there isnt one.

The other way around would be if the Turn Player had more than one monster face-up in attack and the opponent responded with zero gravity and chained sakuretsu armor. Sakuretsu armor would still resolve correctly because the attacking monster is still "attacking" and then zero gravity resolves and changes the remaining monsters to defense.

Or more easier, your opponent chains another Sakuretsu Armor to your Desert Sunlight. But either way, if there is no longer a attacking monster for Sakuretsu Armor, how is it going to destroy the monster? Draining Shield, Magic Jammer, Negate Attack vs. Elemental Hero Wildheart are all examples of where if the card does not accomplish its first part, the second part does not happen.

 

[Tiso]

"Negate the attack and end the batlle phase" That's one effect.

Magic Cylinder has 2 effects, one is negating the attack, the other is inflicting damage.
With wildheart neither one can go through because a trap card cannot check the ATK of a card that is unaffected by Trap Cards.

Sakuretsu's armor effect is really "To destroy the targetted monster." Konami like to keep card text concise if possible, and so "Target the attacking monster" and "Destroy the targetted monster" are concatenated into a single sentence.

You are going off base and getting confused. It is not the fact Magic Cylinder could not check the ATK of Wildheart, it is because it did not accomplish its first task, which is to negate the attack. Just like how if Dark World Lightning does not destroy a face-down card, the second effect does not happen. Sakuretsu Armor text is fine and clearly explains what it does and how it works. Stop making it more confusing than it is, because it is not.

 

[masterwoo0]

Sakuretsu's armor effect is really "To destroy the targetted monster." Konami like to keep card text concise if possible, and so "Target the attacking monster" and "Destroy the targetted monster" are concatenated into a single sentence.

Sakuretsu armor's effect is NOT to destroy the "targeted" monster.

It's to destroy the "attacking" monster. That's a HUGE difference, which equates to "destroy the face-up monster".

If either situation changes, the effect cannot resolve.

 

[skey23]

Ok, with woo0, that makes 3! Level 3's unite!

Wonder Judge powers activate!

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

You are going off base and getting confused. It is not the fact Magic Cylinder could not check the ATK of Wildheart, it is because it did not accomplish its first task, which is to negate the attack. Just like how if Dark World Lightning does not destroy a face-down card, the second effect does not happen. Sakuretsu Armor text is fine and clearly explains what it does and how it works. Stop making it more confusing than it is, because it is not.

Some cards have effects taht are dependant on the first, other cards have separate effects that resolve as much as possible.

Try reading the card text:
Select 1 face-down card on the field and destroy it, and after that, select 1 card from your hand and discard it to the Graveyard.

That clearly show why its 2nd effect is dependant on its first.

Other cards that resolve as much as possible,a nd aprts are separate from each other:
Amazoness Archers is a good example, (cards don't have to be forced to attack position to have their ATK decreased.)
Cyber Jar is another one. It doesn't have to destroy any monsters in order to complete the rest of its effect.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Sakuretsu armor's effect is NOT to destroy the "targeted" monster.

It's to destroy the "attacking" monster. That's a HUGE difference, which equates to "destroy the face-up monster".

If either situation changes, the effect cannot resolve.

It destroys "THE" monster.

Oh but lets look at the ruling itself:
"¢ If the turn player chains "Book of Moon" to "Sakuretsu Armor" to flip the attacking monster face-down, then the attacking monster is not destroyed by "Sakuretsu Armor".

Wow, it got flipped face-down, and it is still considered THE attacking monster. Imagine that.

EDIT:
The reason why it still says "the attacking monster" is because it is a reference.

In general, if a card has specific conditions in order to be activated, those conditions only have to be correct at the time the card is activated. If they are no longer correct when the card resolves, the card's effect still resolves.
However, if a card has specific conditions regarding its target, and those conditions are no longer correct at the time the card is activated and when the card resolves, then the card's effect disappears.

Sakuretsu Armor's activation requirement is "When your opponent declares an attack" and that is it. The requirement was correct at activation. Like all targetting effect it needs the target to stick around. (Sakuretsu being one of the cards taht loses track of face-down monsters, so the monster needs to remain face-up)

Now if we were to write the text just like that:

"You can only activate this card when your opponent declares an attack. Destroy the monster."

Destroy the monster? But it didn't say which monster to destroy? How do we know which monster to destroy? It didn't reference at all which mosnter its talking about. Sure we might assume that its the attacking monster... but on the other hand, "the defending monster" would be jsut as correct of an assumption if available.

So we need a reference to know what monster its going to destroy. But the text of sakuretsu armor is permanent. It can't say destroy the purple monster one time... destroy the red monster the next time, so it needs something else...

OF course "Destroy the monster that declared the attack that this card was activated in response to."

English class teaches us to avoid using passive tense, it's a very boring writing style.

Konami wants its text to sound cool, so it has to find an adjective to describe the monster that declared an attack.

So naturally, it becomes "The attacking monster." A reference to which monster to destroy--not a resolution requirement.

 

[masterwoo0]

Konami wants its text to sound cool, so it has to find an adjective to describe the monster that declared an attack.

So naturally, it becomes "The attacking monster." A reference to which monster to destroy--not a resolution requirement.

Again, none of us are official spokesman or public relations for Konami. If I were to create a game, I surely wouldnt need other people to speak for me when I chose not to speak.

If somewhere on their webiste they have it listed that they want their text to sound cool, then by all means, quote them.

But, the mechanic you suggest would most assuredly have been listed in the addtional rulings to state that a monster would still be destroyed regardless of position, which means face-down as well, because it is still the targeted card whether it is face-up or down, as you suggested earlier.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

But, the mechanic you suggest would most assuredly have been listed in the addtional rulings to state that a monster would still be destroyed regardless of position, which means face-down as well, because it is still the targeted card whether it is face-up or down, as you suggested earlier.

Refer to Kevin's re: Card Textt post for Konami's policy.

Secondly no it will not be destroyed if face-down, because as i mentioned elseewhere "this card" "that card" etc is not clearly defined. Some cards can keep track of face-down monsters, others can't. (Just like Call of the Haunted loses its target when its turned face-downed)

The FAQ is for frequently asked questions. Not every single question under the sun.

But if you want to make an appeal to omission then let's go read the magic cylinder ruling:

"¢ If an effect is chained to "Magic Cylinder" that destroys the attacking monster, or removes the attacking monster from the turn player's side of the field (including switching it to your control, or sending it to the owner's hand), no damage is dealt by the effect of "Magic Cylinder".

Magic Cylinder also says "the attacking monster" and yet this ruling makes absolutely no mention of changing it to defense position.

But even if you insist taht "attacking monster" is a requirement and not a reference go by the judge list's posts that show that switching a monster to defense position does not (immediately) stop its attack.

 

[Tiso]

You are overanalyzing the usage of "attacking monster" in the rulings. It is there only to identify which monster it is, not to be taking literatly that it is still an attacking monster if it is now in your hand, in defense position, RFG, or whatever.

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

You are overanalyzing the usage of "attacking monster" in the rulings. It is there only to identify which monster it is, not to be taking literatly that it is still an attacking monster if it is now in your hand, in defense position, RFG, or whatever.

Like rulings, like text.

 

[Digital Jedi]

You don't "resume" attacks that have stopped,..

Simple question. Why not?

 

[DarkLogicianOfCaos]

It destroys "THE" monster.

EDIT:
The reason why it still says "the attacking monster" is because it is a reference.

Maybe the problem is English convention. Would it help if it read "an attacking monster" or better, "a currently attacking monster"? I mean, there can only be ONE attacking monster at a time, so, it would have to be that one, but "a" would leave off any debate of targeting. Moreover, it would also solve the problem with Book of Mooning him. He is no long "currently attacking", he is currently taking a powder.

Yugioh-- good fun, bad English.

 

[Dr Sin]

SAKURETSU ARMOR

"Sakuretsu Armor" targets 1 monster.

This discussion is a confusing one.
Sakuretsu's text says:

You can only activate this card when your opponent declares an attack. Destroy the attacking monster.

I really don't see how can a monster that had his attack declared not being considered still an "attacking monster" while resolving the direct response chain.

Probably it's a bad example, but in the case of Magician's Circle:
I declare an attack with Breaker, for example. I pass. My op activates Sak (link 1). I activate MC (link 2).
If my op special summons a monster, then a replay must occour, but Sak resolves during this current chain anyway, even in this situation in which, in theory at least, this attack is being "stopped by a game mechanic".
Maybe I'm confusing some concepts, lol...

But, if I understood, what it's been suggested is that the first part of the text: "You can only activate this card when your opponent declares an attack." must be fulfilled at activation time and "Destroy the attacking monster." must be fulfilled at resolution time?

 

[babyarm]

Hey Simon, here's one for you:

I declare an attack with my Gemini Elf into your Don Zaloog.

You activate Reinforcements.

I chain Zero Gravity.

You chain Sakuretsu Armor.

I chain Desert Sunlight.

Desert Sunlight resolves and switches my Gemini Elf to defense mode.

Sakuretsu Armor resolves, and my Gemini Elf (in your example) is no longer targeted and isn't destroyed.

Zero Gravity resolves, switching my Gemini Elf to Attack mode, and your Don Zaloog to Defense mode.

Reinforcements resolves and gives Don Zaloog +500 ATK points.

So now the chain has fully resolved, no effects that negate attacks have resolved, and I still have an Attack position monster, in the Battle Step, that has declared an attack on a monster that is still on the field. What happens?

 

[novastar]

Whether the monster is "attacking" or not during SA's resolution is irrelevent.

Technically, yes once the monster is switched into defence that monster is no longer "attacking" (unless it's TDS), much like if Gravity Bind were to be chained, but it doesn't affect SA.

Sakurestu Armor targets the monster that declared the attack, once that is done, as long as the monster is face-up during resolution it will be destroyed regardless of whether it is still attacking or not. Exactly the same as Magic Cylinder.

The "Destroy the attacking monster" is actually a targeting requirement NOT a resolution requirement.

You target a monster that is attacking, after that it doesn't matter.

It is like saying "Destroy the [selected] monster" ...just slightly more specific.

It's one of those borderline targeted effects like Magic Cylinder, Trap Hole etc., which can make it difficult to decipher because it is technically written in non-targeted language like Fissure etc.