What The? Can He Do That?

D

DaRkNiTeOmEgA252

New Member
I have a couple of questions that need clarification.

Scenerio #1:
Player A (turn player) has Red-Eyes B. Dragon on the field in Attack Position. He enters his Battle Phase and attacks Player B directly for 2400 Life Points. Then, during his Main Phase 2, he activates Inferno Fire Blast. Is this a legal move? Since Inferno Fire Blast prevents a Red-Eyes B. Dragon to attack, wouldn't this be an illegal move? Or, what if Red-Eyes B. Dragon didn't attack at all? Can Inferno Fire Blast still be activated during his Main Phase 2?

Scenerio #2:
Player A (turn player) activates Snatch Steal to take control of Player B's Blade Knight. Then, Player A activates Book of Moon/Tsukuyomi's effect. Does the Snatch Steal'ed monster stay on Player A's side of the field, or does it return to Player B's side of the field?

Scenerio #3:
Player A (turn player) activates Ceasefire. There are 3 Effect Monsters on the field, but none of them are face-down. Can a player activate Ceasefire when there are no face-down monsters?

Thanks in advance. :)
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
DaRkNiTeOmEgA252 said:
I have a couple of questions that need clarification.

Scenerio #1:
Player A (turn player) has Red-Eyes B. Dragon on the field in Attack Position. He enters his Battle Phase and attacks Player B directly for 2400 Life Points. Then, during his Main Phase 2, he activates Inferno Fire Blast. Is this a legal move? Since Inferno Fire Blast prevents a Red-Eyes B. Dragon to attack, wouldn't this be an illegal move? Or, what if Red-Eyes B. Dragon didn't attack at all? Can Inferno Fire Blast still be activated during his Main Phase 2?

Scenerio #2:
Player A (turn player) activates Snatch Steal to take control of Player B's Blade Knight. Then, Player A activates Book of Moon/Tsukuyomi's effect. Does the Snatch Steal'ed monster stay on Player A's side of the field, or does it return to Player B's side of the field?

Scenerio #3:
Player A (turn player) activates Ceasefire. There are 3 Effect Monsters on the field, but none of them are face-down. Can a player activate Ceasefire when there are no face-down monsters?

Thanks in advance. :)
Click to expand...
1. Inferno Fire Blast cannot be used if Red-Eyes B. Dragon has declared an attack. Using it in Main Phase 2 is fine as long as it hasn't attacked. And as the card says, you cannot attack w/ REBD if you use Inferno Fire Blast in Main Phase 1. Note that if you have multiple copies of REBD on the field, none can attack if you use IFB and IFB cannot be used if any of the REBDs attacked.

2. Snatch Steal is removed from the field, and the monster remains on Player A's side of the field.

3. Ceasefire can be activated if there is at least 1 face down monster on the field, OR if there is at least 1 face up effect monster on the field. So this is a legal play.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
2. Snatch Steal is removed from the field, and the monster remains on Player A's side of the field.


are you sure it would remain on player a's field? I mean wouldn't it go back to its rightful owner? I am having a hard time believing that the monster would be a free one now and my opponent wouldn't gain 1000. But ya know I could be wrong.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So the only area where an illegal play was made was in the case of Red-Eyes Black dragon. Unlike Soul Exchange (which I FUBARed o a question on once today) you cannot enter your Battle Phase on the turn you activate that card. But Inferno Fire Blast only prevents you from declaring an attack with Red-Eyes that turn. Remeber that you can enter your Battle Phase without having to attack with any monsters. In fact, you can enter your Battle Phase even if you control no monsters.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
.:TDK:. said:
2. Snatch Steal is removed from the field, and the monster remains on Player A's side of the field.


are you sure it would remain on player a's field? I mean wouldn't it go back to its rightful owner? I am having a hard time believing that the monster would be a free one now and my opponent wouldn't gain 1000. But ya know I could be wrong.
Click to expand...
This has actually come up in rather lengthy discussion on this board a few months back.

Where dealing with an Equip Card here, and as such were dealing with different game mechanics. Snatch Steal looses it's target if the equipped monster is turned face down. The face down monster does not know which side of the field it belongs on so it remain where it is. there is no existing mechanic that would return the monster to the other side of the field.

Now I know your already thinking about Change of Heart. But Change of Heart affects a monster face-down OR face-up and it returns the monster at the end of the turn through it's effect.

Snatch Steal has no returning effect so if its target gets flipped the monster doesn't know or care who he belong to.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
This has actually come up in rather lengthy discussion on this board a few months back.

Where dealing with an Equip Card here, and as such were dealing with different game mechanics. Snatch Steal looses it's target if the equipped monster is turned face down. The face down monster does not know which side of the field it belongs on so it remain where it is. there is no existing mechanic that would return the monster to the other side of the field.

Now I know your already thinking about Change of Heart. But Change of Heart affects a monster face-down OR face-up and it returns the monster at the end of the turn through it's effect.

Snatch Steal has no returning effect so if its target gets flipped the monster doesn't know or care who he belong to.
Click to expand...

Thankyou, wow I have a lot of talk to do with the judge at my local tourney :so: thanks again.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
About Snatch Steal...the ruling that if you flip down the monster equipped to it and then get to keep still doesn't make any sense to me.

It appears to be based soley on the new ruling for Change of Heart which all of a sudden say that "Until end of turn" really means "At the end of the turn, Change of Heart returns the monster to you opponet (personally, I believe that this ruling was created to help support the Snatch Steal ruling).

In addition, I beleive that the Snatch Steal ruling is incorrect, since it appears to violate the game mechanic of not being able to contol you opponets monsters without a card effect allowing you to do so. Currently, you can only control your own monster (which are on your side of the field), unless there is a card effect that allows you (or forces you) to take control of one of your opponet's monsters. While after the Stolen monster is flipped face down, it might "forget" which side of the field it is on, the game would still remember whose monster it is (you can use Remove Brainwashing on it), and thus wouldn't the game return the monster to it original controler (since you can't control your opponet's monster without a card effect allowing you to do so), even if the monster didn't know who that was?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Snatch Steal v.s Book of Moon. I've been asked that ruling situation SEVERAL times..

Snatch Steal's connection with the monster is stripped away once that monster is face down. The game state sees this and Snatch Steal doesn't have any returning indication on it. There for the monster will not return to the owner's field if it's turned face down.

The ruling is correct, it has mechanics to support it. You just have to compare card text and actually break up the situation.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tkwiget said:
Snatch Steal v.s Book of Moon. I've been asked that ruling situation SEVERAL times..

Snatch Steal's connection with the monster is stripped away once that monster is face down. The game state sees this and Snatch Steal doesn't have any returning indication on it. There for the monster will not return to the owner's field if it's turned face down.

The ruling is correct, it has mechanics to support it. You just have to compare card text and actually break up the situation.
Click to expand...

It has been asked already several times... I'll try to make it clear:
Player A "snatches" the monster of B -> A flips the monster down -> however, at that moment, Snatch can't 'find' its target anymore. Because of that, Snatch self-destructs actually.
And because there is no reason why a monster in that case would return to the other side of the field (it can't be 'recognized' anymore at that moment), the monster stays at the side of the field of A. Actually it doesn't matter anymore who flipped it face-down, player A or B. Flipped down stays flipped down, no matter what.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No, you chain after the activation of Snatch Steal, when it targets and equips to a monster on your opponent's side of the field. Its resolution occurs when it switches to your side of the field.

If Book of Moon is chained, then the monster is flipped face down when Snatch Steal goes to equip. It loses its target and defaults to the Graveyard, before it can be switched to your side of the field.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The reason why the monster would return to its original controller, is that there is no way (unless this is the one expection) that you can control an opponet's monster without a card effect (either the monster's or another card effect) allwoing you (or forcing you) to do so.

Also, if Change of Heart always returned monsters via its own effect from the beginning, they why was a new ruling created stating this? Why wouldn't it have simply been written that way on the card as to avoid all of this confusion?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tonylaudat said:
The reason why the monster would return to its original controller, is that there is no way (unless this is the one expection) that you can control an opponet's monster without a card effect (either the monster's or another card effect) allwoing you (or forcing you) to do so.

Also, if Change of Heart always returned monsters via its own effect from the beginning, they why was a new ruling created stating this? Why wouldn't it have simply been written that way on the card as to avoid all of this confusion?
Click to expand...

As Tkwiget and I already tried to make clear, Snatch doesn't return it to the previous controller. Coming to the point, the control of the monster is actually 'reset' to the point where he is flipped face-down. If you can make your point clear with some rulings, I'll appreciate it. However, at this moment, it looks like a senseless discussion with an open end.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Before I forget: Change of Heart is a card that 'hides' the message of being taken over in the monster. Oppossed to that, lies Snatch. Snatch has the message in itself.

I know that the explanation looks strange, but... I don't know another way anymore.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tonylaudat said:
The reason why the monster would return to its original controller, is that there is no way (unless this is the one expection) that you can control an opponet's monster without a card effect (either the monster's or another card effect) allwoing you (or forcing you) to do so.
Click to expand...
That's totally unsubstantiated. That is non-existant Game Mechanic. The monster returns because the effect returns it. This has been fundamentaly your problem with this card from the beginning. You are convinced that control returns to your oppponent based on Game Mechanincs, when every ruling, every effect text, everybody else totally disagrees with you.

Also, if Change of Heart always returned monsters via its own effect from the beginning, they why was a new ruling created stating this? Why wouldn't it have simply been written that way on the card as to avoid all of this confusion?
Click to expand...
"Take control of the selected monster until the End Phase of this turn." What new ruling? The cards text states what it does. Always has. There is no new ruling. The mechanics have always worked this way. Pardon my saying so, but you seem to be the only one trying to graft a completely non-existant Game Mechanic on top of an already existing one.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tonylaudat said:
The reason why the monster would return to its original controller, is that there is no way (unless this is the one expection) that you can control an opponet's monster without a card effect (either the monster's or another card effect) allwoing you (or forcing you) to do so.

Also, if Change of Heart always returned monsters via its own effect from the beginning, they why was a new ruling created stating this? Why wouldn't it have simply been written that way on the card as to avoid all of this confusion?
Click to expand...

So by your logic if I use Exchange and take one of my opponent's monsters then summon it 2 turns later it is the residual effect of Exchange that keeps the monster from immediately returning to my opponent?

I'm all for questioning rulings that contradict each other, but this seems to be another one of your "I have it in my head it shouldn't be that way" arguments. How about this ruling to reinforce the concept:

[Re: Embodiment of Apophis] If your opponent controls your "Embodiment of Apophis" as a monster with "Snatch Steal" or "Creature Swap", and it is flipped face-down, it goes to your opponent's Spell & Trap Card Zone because he is the controller.
Click to expand...

So here is another ruling stating that the opponent is the controller of the monster when it is flipped face-down. It doesn't return to the original owner because the game considers Snatch Steal severed and the monster (or trap that becomes a monster) is now completely under the control of the opponent (at least until somebody gets Remove Brainwashing onto the field). Once the monster was turned face down it lost the link that identified it as the owner's monster. Of course once destroyed it will head back to the Owner's graveyard.

--And on a side note just because I find it fascinating it would work this way, although turning the monster face-down severs the link of ownership, removing the monster from play does not. The monster goes back to the owner's field after coming back to the field of the opponent after such effects as Interdimensional Matter Transporter and Different Dimension Gate. Quite an interesting mechanic.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Here are some rulings to support my point:

1. Snatch Steal Vs Imperal Order/Spell Canceller: after Snatch Steal is negated, the stolen monster returns to its original controler's side of the field, despite the lack of any effect telling it to do so. In addition, there is nothing in Snatch Steal's text that says it returns the monster to its original contoler if its effect is negated. Once the negating effect is gone, the stolen monster is stolen once again.

2. Snatch Steal Vs Strike Ninja: If I Snatch Steal my opponet's Strike Ninja and the activate its effect and remove it from play, it first comes back on my side of the field. Only after it comes back on my side of the field (and is no longer equipped with Snatch Steal) does it return to my opponet's side of the field.

In these examples, if contol of the stolen mosnter doesn't return to my opponet's side of the field via game mechanics, then what effect allows this control change to take place?

Let's focus on Snatch Steal Vs Strike Ninja, since this ruling is the best on to illustrate my point. In this example rather than a stolen monster that is flipped face down, we have on the is temporarly removed from play. In this example, just like in the case of a stolen monster being flipped face down, Snatch Steal is destoried via game mechanices (in both cases Snatch Steal can no longer be legally equipped to the target monster).

When the stolen monster is face up and removed from play, it returns to its original control (after returning to play on the side of the field from which it left), however, if the stolen mosnter is flipped face down, it remains on that side of the field. How can this seemingly direct contrdiction exist?

The main argument for the stolen monster remaining stolen is that control of the mosnter is reset when the mosnter is flipped face down. If this is the case, then why isn't the same true if the same monster in temporarly removed from the game? Wouldn't control of the mosnter also be reset in this case?

Also in the ruling of Stirke Ninja Vs Snatch Steal, it was stated that Stike Ninja would return to it original contoler becasue it was no longer equipped with Snatch Steal. Since this is the case, it would appear that not being equipped (or affected) by Snatch Steal is enough to return the mosnter it its original controler's side of the field. So why doesn't this happen with face down mosnters?

Finally, I am not arguing a non-existant game mechanic with the idea that monster's can't be contoler by another player without a card effect either allowing them (or forcing them ) to, or an effect that allows a player to use an opponet's monster as if it was there own. While it might not be a defined mechanic, it cerintally applies in almost every case. Think about it. Is there any case (expect for the one that I am agruing against) in which you can contol your opponet's monster unless one of the above conditions is present?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Tony has a point. There is a contradiction in game mechanics here. One says that monsters always revert to their original owner when an effect does not exist telling them to do otherwise, while another says cards will STAY on whoever's field they are on until an effect tells them to do otherwise. Now if I summon my Lava Golem on your field, with ojama tokens I shien's spied to you after you Creature Swapped them to me, and then I activate Snatch Steal, targeting golem, then chain Emergency Provisions, and if it's raining, but is not Tuesday, then I summon Strike Ninja...

-pssvr
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top