Summoner vs. Scapegoat

S

squid

removed from play
I was asked this question on another site and wanted to ask for confirmation.

Player A: attacks Player B's face down monsters
Player B: responds to attack by activating Scapegoat
Player A: replays, attacking the same face down monster and discovers Summoner of Illusions.

Q: Does the mandatory flip effect of Summoner of Illusions still tribute a Scapegoat token and summon a Fusion monster, in spite of the summoning restriction made by Scapegoat?

Thanks for your time. I wasn't having success with former threads. The only reference that my friend found to suggest that this was legal was the ruling concerning Morphing Jar vs. Protector of the Sanctuary + CotH.

EDIT: 'Scuse me, I was mixing rule #3 of PotS vs. Morphing with rules #10, #13-18. The one Im referring to is #3 under PotS:
If "Protector of the Sanctuary" is on the field, then Flip Effects like "Morphing Jar" will still activate because they must activate when the monster is flipped (whether it was Flip Summoned, flipped by an attack, or flipped by "Book of Taiyou", etc.)
Click to expand...
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Yes, but I believe that Scapegoat prevents the manual activation of an effect, or the forced activation of a CotH by Bait Doll (since the timing would be incorrect)

However, if Summoner of Illusions is flipped due to an attack, wouldn't its effect be mandatory?

Or, does the summoning restriction cause the effect of Summoner to resolve without effect?

Its the precedence set by the ruling #3 concerning Protector of the Sanctuary that makes me believe that this scenario is, in fact, legal.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
And how is Morphing Jar different than Summoner of Illusions? Both are Flip Effect Monster cards. SoI simply requires that another monster from the same side of the field be tributed. Would not its effect also be considered mandatory? If it isnt, why?

Im just trying to wrap my head clearly around the situation, because I am having a hard time accepting that one condition.... wait...

With PotS vs. Morphing Jar, both are effects, right. One effect (MJ) has a mandatory trigger when flipped due to attack.

But, Scapegoat's restriction is a condition, not so much an effect. Therefore the condition would take precedence over the effect of SoI. Similar to how the condition of BLS-EOB prevents the card from having both its effects activated during the same turn, even if BLS-EOB is somehow flipped face down or removed from the field and returned.

Does that seem like a feasible explanation?

Sorry about the confusion with CotH. Please ignore that particular portion. I really just wanted to concentrate on Scapegoat and SoI.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would greatly appreciate that, chaosruler. I started off firmly believing that it was possible, and now am faarr from sure. Im more inclined to think it wont now, but I want to know why, specifically.

Ill try and do some research myself and get back here.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is going to be a very round-about extrapolation but here goes.

Take the ruling for Magical Scientist vs. Jowgen the Spiritualist. You cannot pay the cost of Magical Scientist to Special Summon a monster while Jowgen the Spiritualist is face-up on the field. So it would not be far of a stretch to say that if Scapegoat were activated the same turn, you would not be able to pay the cost for Summoner of Illusions since all other Summons are prevented.

Also the reference with Morphing Jar is not quite the same thing vs. Protetor of the Sanctuary because a) Morphing Jar has no costs b) Morphing Jar has 2 separate effects: both players discarding, then both players drawing. The resolution of the card tries to fit it in to the best of its ability. So in that case, the first effect affects both players while the second effect only affects the player controlling Protector of the Sanctuary.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Its interesting that you bring up the 2 separate effects of Morphing Jar, because the tributing caused by Summoner of Illusions is written in a separate sentence from the Special Summoning effect.

Therefore its quite easily believable that if Summoner was attacked and flipped up in the same turn that Scapegoat was activated, that the monster would still be tributed, but no Special Summoning would occur.

I didn't quite come up with this on my own, of course. Waldo, on Realms, dropped me that tidbit of info.

i still like the think that the "condition" state overrides the "effect" of monsters. Though I can't claim that as a certainty. Just looking for formatting and mechanics.

Thanks for clearing all this up, gents.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, I've been staying out of this one, but after thinking about some things I gotta put my two cents in.

There is no reason to belive that Summonert of Illusions would force the Tributing mechanic. The effect cannot legaly activate on the same turn its controller played Scapegoat successfully. When the effect cannot lleagally activate you dont pay the cost.

The ruling "You must use "Summoner of Illusions"' effect when it is flipped face-up, either by Flip Summon or by being attacked. If you have no cards in your Fusion Deck, the effect cannot activate and you do not Tribute 1 monster." says to me that if it can't activate then you tribute nothing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
That's something I hadn't considered. (another one)

However, Im not seeing it as the exact equivilent if, for example, there are cards in the Fusion deck. The condition put into place by an activated Scapegoat card will prevent the Summoning (now that I am clear on that part).

Im just not sure whether the effect cannot activate, or cannot resolve successfully. Im seeing it as a technicality, admitted. But if the effect can activate, because A: there are Fusion cards available; and B: you must use the effect when it is flipped up by summon or attack, then why would the tributing be nullified?

I guess Im thinking of it as similar to how Last Turn can still activate with Jowgen face up, because the conditions put into place by Last Turn are separate from its effect and are not affected by the effect of Jowgen.

Or am I babbling nonsense by this point?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
squid said:
That's something I hadn't considered. (another one)

However, Im not seeing it as the exact equivilent if, for example, there are cards in the Fusion deck. The condition put into place by an activated Scapegoat card will prevent the Summoning (now that I am clear on that part).

Im just not sure whether the effect cannot activate, or cannot resolve successfully. Im seeing it as a technicality, admitted. But if the effect can activate, because A: there are Fusion cards available; and B: you must use the effect when it is flipped up by summon or attack, then why would the tributing be nullified?

I guess Im thinking of it as similar to how Last Turn can still activate with Jowgen face up, because the conditions put into place by Last Turn are separate from its effect and are not affected by the effect of Jowgen.

Or am I babbling nonsense by this point?
Click to expand...
[Re: Last Turn] "Last Turn" is not a card that Special Summons a monster when it resolves. Therefore you can activate "Last Turn" even while "Jowgen the Spiritualist" is face-up on the field. If the player activating "Last Turn" controls "Jowgen the Spiritualist" and selects it as the monster to keep, the opponent cannot Special Summon for "Last Turn", and there will be no special Battle Phase. However the victory check is still applied in the End Phase.

As you can see, the Last Turn vs. Jowgen the Spiritualist ruling is different to this situation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, I think the problem arising here is that were seeing it as an effect that is being negated. Not as it should viewed, which is an effect being prevented.

This is not a case of a cost getting paid for an effect (like a Magic Jammer being discarded for) and then being negated (like a Seven Tools of the Bandit) and the costb being played anyway.

Just becasue there are cards in the Fusion Deck wont make it any more legal to activate this effect (on the Scapegoat restricted turn) then it would be to try to activate Metamoprhisis. It wouldn't be the first time a Flip Effect couldn't activate after being flipped.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, by negating the activation of a card implies that it already activated (hence paying costs) preventing the activation from even occuring (as is the case with Scapegoat vs. Jowgen) so no costs are paid. I'm just giving more detail to DJ's explanations.

-chaosruler
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, by negating the activation of a card implies that it already activated (hence paying costs) preventing the activation from even occuring (as is the case with Scapegoat vs. Jowgen) so no costs are paid. I'm just giving more detail to DJ's explanations.

-chaosruler
Click to expand...
I agree, although flips are "mandatory" effects, there's no way this one happens...well, I mean, what would happen if you used Scapegoats and your opponent activated Bait Doll targeting your Face-Down Archfiend's Roar? (let's say you have desrook in your graveyard). Would it activate? No.
I think if, when trying to activate an effect, you MUST CHECK that the effect does something, otherwise ignore it...but I don't quite remember if Magician of Faith resolves without effect if there are no spell cards in your graveyard when you activate the card...

Well...my thoughts :D
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In the case of Magician of Faith and Mask of Darkness not having a Spell or Trap card in the Graveyard upon activation is kind of like this.

You can't buy a new computer game that costs 50 bucks if you don't have 50 bucks, right? Same goes for these two cards. If you don't have a Spell or Trap card to get back you won't ever get one back. There effects simply don't resolve the last bit of their text where you recieve the card.

In the case of Scapegoat vs. Summoner of Illusions, I'll be save to say that the Fusion monster can't be brought out via the preventing effect of Scapegoat. Let's use my computer game example again. If you have your 50 bucks and you want to buy a computer game and your parents say no, then that's preventing you from buying one right?

Scapegoat is preventing Summoner of Illusions from bringing out a Fusion. Very simple to understand IMO. =/
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Unless it's similar to a Magician of Faith situation. The Scapegoat in this case is preventing the summoning from happening, but Summoner of Illusion's effect is a cost effect right? Tributing a monster to get out another to me is a cost effect. Just like Tribe-Infecting Virus and Magic Jammer, you discard, then your opponent can either Divine Wrath or Solemn Judgment your card. So I think payments have to be paid for even if the summoning is prevented in this case.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top