SJC St. Louis Ruling Questions

[ygo doc]

Here are a few ruling questions that came up multiple times at the St. Louis SJC.

Snipe Hunter and Gadgets
Turn Player discards a gadget monster (or any 1 card) from their Hand to activate Snipe Hunter's effect. They select an opponent's set Spell/Trap card to destroy. They roll the die and it turns up "3". The Non-Turn Player now says he chains the selected set Trap card Ring of Destruction to destroy Snipe Hunter. STOP!

This is an illegal play. Ring of Destruction may not be activated at this point as it is cutting into the resolving effect of Snipe Hunter. If RoD is to be chained, it must be done when Snipe Hunter selects its target, before the die is rolled. This is the same situation as Blowback Dragon. You must chain when these monsters select their targets, not when they resolve their effects to destroy a card.

Secret Barrel counts tokens. Check the FAQ!

Dimension Wall does NOT target. Yes, most duelists used this card like an unlimited Magic Cylinder which does target, but there are differences.

Ultimate Offering
This card may still only be used by the owner.
This card effect may be used more than once during the same turn.
This card may NOT be activated and have a monster summoned during the same chain. Case in point. Turn Player plays Heavy Storm, then chains his face-down Ultimate Offering and chains it again to summon a monster before the card is destroyed. STOP! This is NOT a legal play.

Although, Ultimate Offering can be chained to itself, it MUST be face-up on the field already to do so. In the above chain, you cannot pay 500 Lifepoints and chain UO to itself to summon/set a monster because the activation of UO has not yet resolved. You can't use the effect of Ultimate Offering until it has resolved to the Field.

The following chain is legal. Turn Player activates Heavy Storm. He then chains his FACE-UP Ultimate Offering to summon a gadget monster. This same chain becomes illegal when the Non-Turn Player chains his set Trap Hole to destroy the gadget monster. Ultimate Offering has not yet resolved in the chain to summon a monster, so Trap Hole cannot be activated here. By the time we wait for the chain to resolve, Trap Hole will be destroyed by Heavy Storm.

In a similar but different situation, Turn Player plays Fissure to destroy opponent's monster, then chains his face-up Ultimate Offering to bring out Breaker the Magical Warrior. The Non-Turn Player activates/chains his set Bottomless Trap Hole. STOP! Bottomless Trap Hole cannot be chained here, as no monster has yet been summoned until the chain resolves. Non-Turn Player says "OK", then lets chain resolve and then flips Bottomless Trap Hole to activate it. STOP! This is also illegal. Although, Breaker the Magical Warrior was summoned (and got a counter), the last thing to resolve in the game state was the destruction of a monster by Fissure, NOT the summoning of a >1500 ATK monster. BTH cannot be activated here.

Yes, there were lots of questions regarding Ultimate Offering. You can see why it is limited to one.

Elemental Hero Stratos and Dark Magician of Chaos are simultaneously special summoned from the removed from play area by Dimension Fusion or Return from the Different Dimension. Both monsters have their effects triggered and since they are both optional they go on chain and resolve in sequence determined by owner of effects.

Mind Crush
If the opponent does not have the named card in Hand, they must show their Hand to prove it. If they admit they have the card in Hand and discard it, you may not look at the player's Hand. However, if you suspect the opponent is cheating and has more than 1 copy of the card in Hand, you may call a judge over to check. This is posted on the judge site: http://lists.upperdeck.com/read/messages?id=2554#2554.

Treeborn Frog in Standby Phase
Turn Player special summons Treeborn Frog in his Standby Phase and then uses Enemy Controller in his Hand to tribute and seize control of his opponent's face-up monster while still in Standby Phase. Turn Player then special summons Treeborn Frog again to his side of the Field. A very legitimate play. I was asked this question 3 times and the answer is the very 1st ruling posted on the FAQ under Treeborn Frog.

Future Fusion cannot use Fusion substitutes for its effect. Check the FAQ.

The above questions were asked more than once in some form of another, so I hope by posting these, no one will ask these same questions at the next tournament I judge.

doc

 

[Cropz]

I wonder why nobody mentioned 'Lady Assailant of Flames', it's very similar to 'Card Trooper', and it's not a cost, which will lead one to believe that 'Card Trooper' also does NOT have a cost, and its resolution would be similar to 'Destruction of Destiny' (having the ATK boost even if the cards end up NOT in the Graveyard), that would make the most sense.

Also, someone mentioned the JERP ruling on the first page... yes, it does say 'Card Trooper' has a cost, but it ALSO says that 'Lady Assailant of Flames' has one, which is contradicted by the UDE Faq, so that's one more reason to believe it's NOT a cost.

 

[Jathro]

Nobody mentioned Lady Assailant of Flames because that card already removes cards from play. Card Trooper says to send them to the Graveyard, but the question is, what if an effect prevents the player from doing so.

A teammate ran 2x Card Trooper at the Butler, PA regional over the weekend. I asked the head judge what he thought about this, and he said that he would rule that Card Trooper could send the cards out of play, but would not get the ATK boost. I don't think the situation came up in play during the day, and that's not exactly the most 'official' source, but a head judge is a head judge.

 

[Cropz]

I'm not talking about the "graveyard" part, but the "cost or effect?" question.
The ruling on 'Lady Assailant of Flames' state that it's NOT a cost, so it's safe to assume that 'Card Trooper' would be the same, and since it's not a cost, being sent to the graveyard is irrelevant to the effect itself (see 'Destruction of Destiny').

 

[Fury]

LON-EN035 Lady Assailant of Flames is a really weird one:

FLIP: Remove 3 cards from the top of your Deck from play to inflict 800 points of damage to your opponent's Life Points.

The "to" indicates a <cost> to <effect> situation 99% of the time. Maybe just a mistranslation and they should have used "and" instead. Or the ruling in the TCG is bad

EDIT: No surprise but LON-EN036 Fire Sorcerer has the same structure and same rulings. Wow.

EDIT: I tried LAoF in the Joey PC game and it's implemented as a cost. (I know that doesnt mean much.)

 

[Cropz]

The ruling makes sense since, as a rule of thumb, nothing that affects the deck can be a cost.

 

[masterwoo0]

Still, the question has not been answered...

If Macros or Banisher was on the field along with Gravekeeper's Servant, would the opponent be able to attack?

Also, Gravekeeper's Servant isn't a Cost. It's part of the effect, so sending a card to the Graveyard, and it being removed from play doesnt prevent the attack from being carried out.

 

[John Danker]

Also, Gravekeeper's Servant isn't a Cost. It's part of the effect, so sending a card to the Graveyard, and it being removed from play doesnt prevent the attack from being carried out.

You aren't implying that anything that IS a cost must be sent to the specified area (graveyard) are you?....not trying to put words into your mouth mind you, just checking.

 

[masterwoo0]

You aren't implying that anything that IS a cost must be sent to the specified area (graveyard) are you?....not trying to put words into your mouth mind you, just checking.

Only talking about Gravekeeper's Servant. But the fact remains that a Spell or Trap Card Activation (not effect) that has a Cost involved, certainly cannot be activated if it cannot be sent to that location.

 

[Fury]

Gravekeeper's Servant gives the opponent's monsters an attack cost. Like Panther Warrior or Dark Elf have attack costs given to them by their own effects. So if cards for a cost need to go to the grave when stated on the card then indeed the monsters couldnt attack.

EDIT: What you said masterwoo0 is also true for monster effects e.g. Herald of Green Light.

If "Banisher of the Radiance" or "Macro Cosmos" is face-up on the field, you cannot activate "Herald of Green Light's" effect because you cannot send it and another Fairy-Type monster to the Graveyard for the cost.

 

[John Danker]

Only talking about Gravekeeper's Servant. But the fact remains that a Spell or Trap Card Activation (not effect) that has a Cost involved, certainly cannot be activated if it cannot be sent to that location.

The text and rulings from Emergency Provisions would appear to support your statement. It clearly states that sending cards to the graveyard is a cost and that if Bannisher of the Light is face up on the field Emergency Provisions cannot be activated........

Emergency Provisions

Text:
Send Spell or Trap Cards on your side of the field to the Graveyard except this card. Increase your Life Points by 1000 points for each card sent to the Graveyard

Rulings:

Sending Spell and Trap Cards on your side of the field to the Graveyard is a cost for activating this card.

While "Banisher of the Light" is face-up on the field, you cannot activate "Emergency Provisions" since it is impossible to send cards to the Graveyard.

That may be the first concrete thing I've seen regarding this whole subject matter and at least something in the written rules to base another ruling on when one isn't given.

Monster effects still puzzle me this way though, as was mentioned Kuriboh and Thunder Dragon as well as Exiled Force all are not required to go to the graveyard in order to recieve their effects, however, as mentioned earlier in the thread there is the ruling with....

Avatar of The Pot
Text
By sending 1 "Pot of Greed" from your hand to the Graveyard, draw 3 cards from your Deck.

Rulings
Sending "Pot of Greed" to the Graveyard is a cost.
You cannot activate "Avatar of the Pot"'s effect while "Banisher of the Light" is in play.

So are we to assume that monster effects activated from the hand do not need be sent to the graveyard when stated but monster effects activated on the field DO need to be sent to the graveyard in order to recieve their effects? Why or why not?

*Note*

Thanks for your patience on this one folks....I'm trying really hard here to try and figure this out in my own mind, as with many things I couldn't do it without all of your fine help! Hopefully this will help others as well on a seemingly very confusing subject matter.

 

[Fury]

Hm.

If it says: "send from X to grave" as a cost it wont work.
Because the destination is specified.
e.g.
Herald of Green Light -> send from hand to grave -> can't activate
Kuriboh -> discard from hand -> can activate
Thunder Dragon -> discard form hand -> can activate
Exiled Force -> tribute on the field -> can activate
Avatar of the Pot -> send from hand to grave -> can't activate
Emergency Provisions -> send from field to grave -> can't activate
The First Sarcophagus -> send from field to grave -> can't activate
Card Trooper -> send from deck to grave -> can't activate (by the pattern)
Wave-Motion Cannon -> send from field to grave -> can't activate

EDIT: Done.

Tribute, discard and destroy never say the destination of the card. Send is the only one that does, and it is mandatory that the card goes there. That's the point.

 

[John Danker]

Instresting....so the only pattern we're able to find is the word send? I appreciate you making the comparrisons, thank you....seems pretty unusual though doesn't it? Other than Dark World monsters using the term discard I'm not sure I know of anything else that depends on the paticular wording of discard / send so highly.....I'm sure our membership will come up with others.

*EDIT*

Perhaps rather than using the term "won't work" you might edit your post to say, "Can't activate" I think that last post is a good reference and it would be more descriptive.

 

[Cropz]

The reason the term "send" specifies the destination and the others don't is purely grammatical, it wouldn't make sense to say "tribute this card to the graveyard" or "send this card from your hand" (send to where?), hence why they don't really need to go to the graveyard (which is the case when it's not a cost), the term "graveyard" is there for the lack of something else, and because that would be the common destination of cards.

And I'll say again that I do not agree that 'Card Trooper' has a cost, as nothing involving the deck can be a cost, as proven by the years.

 

[Fury]

I agree that it is grammatical, but later it became part of the rulings. The rulings often changed at the start because the creators didnt know what they wanted (they still dont know it )

Sending the top card from your deck to the grave is a cost when your opponent has Gravekeeper's Servant on the field.

 

[masterwoo0]

I agree that it is grammatical, but later it became part of the rulings. The rulings often changed at the start because the creators didnt know what they wanted (they still dont know it )

Sending the top card from your deck to the grave is a cost when your opponent has Gravekeeper's Servant on the field.

It's not a cost. It's part of Gravekeeper's Servant's effect. If it were a cost, you would have to pay it regardless of whether you have Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV6 or Silent Swordsman LV5 on the field, but obviously, neither card is affected.

 

[Fury]

The continuous effect of Gravekeeper's Servant gives an attack cost to the opponent's monsters.

When cards like "Gravekeeper's Servant" or "Toll" are active on the field, you must pay each time "Asura Priest" attacks.

Notice "pay".

Panther Warrior's own effect gives itself an attack cost: tribute 1 monster.
Dark Elf's own effect gives itself an attack cost: 1000 LP.
Toll gives all monsters on the field an attack cost: 500 LP.
Gravekeeper's Servant gives your opponent's monsters an attack cost: send 1 card from deck to grave.

All these effects are continuous effects that modify 1 or more monsters' attack cost.

EDIT: Right now only these 4 cards come to mind that have something to do with attack costs. If you know of others could you post them, I'm curious.

 

[masterwoo0]

The continuous effect of Gravekeeper's Servant gives an attack cost to the opponent's monsters.Notice "pay".

Panther Warrior's own effect gives itself an attack cost: tribute 1 monster.
Dark Elf's own effect gives itself an attack cost: 1000 LP.
Toll gives all monsters on the field an attack cost: 500 LP.
Gravekeeper's Servant gives your opponent's monsters an attack cost: send 1 card from deck to grave.

All these effects are continuous effects that modify 1 or more monsters' attack cost.

Have you tried actually READING Toll? It's right in the effect that you have a Cost Payment of 500 per attack. That is an EFFECT, but even though it counts as a Cost. If you activate Skill Drain, none of the monster's you mentioned would have to pay or Tribute a Monster to attack. Cost can't be negated, only effects.

 

[Fury]

I'll try to explain it further and I'll post more rulings, maybe they help.

Paying Life Points for "Toll" is a cost, so if a player cannot pay the 500 Life Points, they cannot declare an attack. If there are two of this card on the field, a player must pay 1000 Life Points per monster to attack.

You can see that the 500 LP is a cost.

While "Skill Drain" is active, "maintenance costs" are not negated (see the Advanced Gameplay FAQ) so you still have to pay for "The Unfriendly Amazon", "Armor Exe", Archfiends, etc. However, all other costs are negated, so you do not have to pay to attack with "Dark Elf" or "Jirai Gumo".

Attack costs are negated by Skill Drain (not directly though!). That's because all attack costs are generated by continuous effects. There are no monsters with "inherent" attack costs, that cant be negated (i.e. conditions).

So, if the attack cost was generated by a monster effect (Panther Warrior, Dark Elf, Jirai Gumo) then Skill Drain will negate that effect and the cost will dis-appear (until Skill Drain is gone).

In case of Toll and Gravekeeper's Servant, the attack cost is generated by the effect of a Spell Card. So Skill Drain wont help you there. However if Imperial Order negates the Spell or the monster is unaffected by the effects of spells then it wont have to pay to attack.

EDIT: Well, I edited this like 20 times now.

 

[John Danker]

Again, I want to thank eveyone for their input on this thread....which I think is one a long time in coming, everyone is doing their best to figure out things here that we're not even sure Konami has a plan for or has figured out.....but please, this could easily become heated, please realize that eveyone is trying to be helpful and keep putting forth good information with the best of intent....and keep it on the positive side everyone? Much appreciated!

 

[masterwoo0]

I'll try to explain it further and I'll post more rulings, maybe they help.You can see that the 500 LP is a cost.Attack costs are negated by Skill Drain (not directly though!). That's because all attack costs are generated by continuous effects. There are no monsters with "inherent" attack costs, that cant be negated (i.e. conditions).

In case of Toll and Gravekeeper's Servant, the attack cost is generated by the effect of a Spell Card. So Skill Drain wont help you there. However if Imperial Order negates the Spell or the monster is unaffected by the effects of spells then it wont have to pay to attack.

Again, Horus and Silent Swordsman are unaffected by Spell Card Effects, but NOT Cost. If Gravekeeper's Servant was a Cost, the controller would still have to pay the Cost of sending a Card.

If you can't send any cards from your Deck [Gravekeeper's Servant], then chances are you are going to lose anyway, but you can't fulfill the requirement to attack, so you can't declare one. Likewise, if you cannot pay 500 life points [Toll], you cannot declare an attack, as again you must pay the Cost of 500 life points to attack.