A serch in the rulings archives yielded this post....
Ok suppose this is the scenario:
Player A has [Strike Ninja]
On Player B's turn he plays [snatch steal] on Strike Ninja (Player A
lets it happen for any number of reasons, not enough darks, doesn't
want to remove them, etc)
On Player A's turn he plays [raigeki].
In response Player B uses Strike Ninja's ability to remove it from
play until the end of the turn, removing 2 dark monsters from his
graveyard. I assume this is a cost.
In chain, Player A activates [mystical space typhoon] targetting the
snatch steal.
If I were to go through this myself my impression would be:
Strike Ninja returns to player's A side of the field as a result of no longer being under the effect of snatch steal.
Player B paid for the cost of Strike Ninja's ability so it is removed from play still and will return to player A's side of the field at the end of the turn.
Then raigeki resolves destroying any remaining monster's on player B's side of the field.
Is this a correct resolution?
Also a slightly different scenario, Player B has snatch steal on Player A's Strike Ninja again. If player B used the effect of Strike Ninja, would snatch steal go to the grave as a result of no target and Strike Ninja returns to Player B again at the end of the turn? Or to player A? Thanks for the help.
Answer:
Your resolution is 100% correct.
As for the remaining scenario, "Strike Ninja" would return to Player B's side of the field and then return to its previous controller, Player A. (This is similar to the ruling for Interdimensional Matter Transporter used on a monster equipped with Snatch Steal)
---------------------------------
Curtis Schultz
Official UDE Netrepâ„¢
CurtisSchultz_netrep@hotmail.com