Vampire Lord Ruling #2

K

kansashoops

New Member
Card Text:

Each time this card inflicts Battle Damage to your opponent's Life Points, declare 1 card type (Monster, Spell, or Trap). Your opponent selects 1 card of that type from his/her Deck and sends it to the Graveyard. Also, if this card is destroyed and sent to the Graveyard by your opponent's card effect, it is Special Summoned to the field during your next Standby Phase.
Click to expand...

Ruling #2:

"Vampire Lord" will only return to play with his effect when the owner controls it, because "Vampire Lord" must be "destroyed and sent to YOUR Graveyard". When your opponent takes control of your "Vampire Lord", and it inflicts Battle Damage to your Life Points, then the first effect of "Vampire Lord" is activated. But the second effect will not be activated if "Vampire Lord" is destroyed and sent to the Graveyard while your opponent controls him.
Click to expand...

For the life of me, I cannot make any sense of this ruling. Can anyone shed any light on this? The card text does not say that he must be on the owner's side of the field for the effect to apply. It says 1) it must be destroyed by your opponent's card effect, and 2) it must be sent to the graveyard.

Here's a scenario that happened yesterday, for example: My opponent has used Snatch Steal on my Vampire Lord. I have Spirit Reaper in face up defense. He summons Tribe and calls Zombie. Vampire Lord is destroyed by his card's effect, and it is sent to the graveyard (my graveyard, obviously). Why on earth wouldn't his effect apply? If they want to errata the text on VLord and say that he must be on the owner's side of the field at the time he is destroyed for the effect to be applied, that's fine. But they didn't. They just issued a ruling that says it must be, with no justification whatsoever. This is wrong, IMO.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
With the scenario you outlined (your opponent took your VL, and destroyed him with Tribe) the effect did not activate because it says 'destroyed by your opponent's card effect'.
In your scenario is was destroyed by the card's controller - not you, the opponent. So it would not come back.

On the ruling question...
The ruling does not cover the scenarios of who actually destroyed VL:
1. VL snatched by Bob from Alan and is then destroyed by Alan's card effect.
2. VL snatched by Bob from Alan and is then destroyed by Bob's card effect. This is your scenario.

The ruling appears to say that it will not come back - no matter what. This could be understood as it activates in the graveyard. At this point it checks the conditions for summoning (destroyed by your opponents card effect). For scenario 1, this is not true as it was destroyed by Alan (not the opponent of the person whose graveyard it is activating in). For scenario 2 this is not true either as at the time it was destroyed it was destroyed by the controller's card effect - not that of the opponent at the time.

This being ambiguous he decides to stay in the graveyard. :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
OK, thanks, I've got it now. I still don't think the ruling is very clear on the Reasoning, but I understand it. I was looking at the situation as of my standby phase. At that point in time, the monster was in my graveyard, and it had been destroyed by "YOUR" (my) opponent's card effect, so I was thinking that the effect should apply. But the ruling, as I now understand it, is that "YOUR OPPONENT" refers to "The Opponent of the Card's Controller," and since the card effect that destroyed it came from a card belonging to VLord's controller at the time, VLord's recursion effect is not triggered, just as it would not be if it had been destroyed by my own Torrential Tribute while on my side of the field. I can live with that.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top