Sakuretsu Armor...

[boyscout8]

Ok, I have a supposed level 3 judge at a tournament I go to who claims to know better than UDE on this ruling, however I leave this open to discussion, hopefully he will see this when he is on the forums and this arguement can be layed to rest...anyway...now note this error is a commonly made misconception...

Sakuretsu Armor's Effect:

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

This effect kicks in whether it be a direct attack on your lp or an attack on your monster.

If it is a direct attack, the attacking monster is destroyed BEFORE the damage step, thus in a sense negating the attack. Now the same applies to an attack on your monster, the attacking monster is, again, destroyed before the damage step.

I checked this ruling with the PES and over-the-phone ruling judges from UDE, so is it possible for this to get posted up as a set ruling, or is it going to be changed in the near future?

Well, please LMK,

-Yeshaya/Isaiah

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Im pretty blown away on that one also.  You cannot counter a "counter" with a card that is unrelated to the effect it is countering.

Here it is straight from UDE:

"The basic rule is that Counter Traps can only be used against the card they are immediately following in a chain".


Negate Attack does nothing to the effect of Seven Tools of the Bandit.

Key Word there CHAIN. Negate Attack can never be chained to the event its supposed to negate: you may not Chain to the declaration of an Attack. Therefore that rule does not apply to Negate Attack. Negate Attack can be activated at anytime during the chain that's in response to the Attack.

 

[anthonyj]

And in the immortal words of Kevin "Negate Attack is weird".

 

[masterwoo0]

Okay, I understand you can't chain to an attack, but Negate Attack is not chaining, its actually "Countering" an attack, and with it being a Spell Speed 3 effect, there is very little that can stop it..  And since the first counter was negated and destroyed, the event for the first activation has been interrupted. 

Just floating that out there for discussion purposes....

 

[anthonyj]

Like I just said Negate Attack is weird. Negate Attack is just looking for an attack to stop. Thus as long as it is used in a response chain to an attack it will negate the attack. You can even allow the first response chain to fully resolve and still use Negate Attack to begin another chain and stop the attack. It is the exception to the rule.

 

[densetsu_x]

Ah,but the first one wasn't negated yet because the chain has not yet resolved.  Because of that, the timing is still correct because the state of the game is still "attack declared"

Yes it is weird, but it's at least easier to explain than priority (the other "responding not chaining" to something happening debate).

However you could not let the chain resolve and ctivate another Negate Attack because the timing is now wrong (game state now being "chain resolved")

 

[AgentMage2012]

This reminds me of back when the enchanted javalin debate was around on realms.

As long as the chain began with X action, you may chain cards that require X action.


Player A does X
Player b responds with a card
player a does nothing
player B responds with a card that requires x
player a does nothing
player B responds with a card that requires x

This should be legal, even if x=attack and the cards all say "You may only activate this card when an opponent declares an attack".