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
Let me try to explain it this way and maybe you can see where I'm coming from:

The precedence is not that Snatch Steal works differently from other equips. The precedence is for the fact that monstes do not return to the previous controller's side of the field by default.

The "manner" that I was refering to is "the way control orginally changed".

This was not a timed effect that returned the monster at the End Phase. (Change of Heart) This was not an effect that just swithched control and left the monster there. (Creature Swap) This was an effect that "bound" the monster to the opponent's side of the field.

An equip that changes control steals a monster in a completely different way than the other "control changers". This doesn't change they way Equip Card mechanics function. But this does have a bearing on the now unequipped face-dow. This is a Game echanic hat has nothing to do with the Game Mechanic that destroyed the Equip Card.
But the effect of the equip Disappears when this happens. But with using snatch the effect (to be on the opponents side of the field) doesnt Disappear. 'This' is not an effect but a state, still it was caused by the effect. Whithout the effect how can it maintain itself instead of reverting to is previous state?
Click to expand...
Thats just thing. The effect DOES dissapear. There is no effect keeping the monster on the opponent's side of the field. It's a Game Mechanic keeping the monster on the opponent's side of the field. Not a lingering effect of Snatch Steal.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The precedence is for the fact that monstes do not return to the previous controller's side of the field by default.
-> Question: If my opp snatches my monster. Later I activate
Imperial Order. The monster is not returning by default! Then why is it returning in this case?
(OK, I must say here that I only played the game on PC so maybe the monster doesnt return in this case in the real game, but then please say so.) (But I read yugioh forums and articles since years.)
The Imperial Order thing is my only argument, if you can proove it that it is wrong you "won".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, like I said, it's a "binding" effect. Imperial Order negates it and control returns. This is no different then if the card was destroy while the monster was still face up. it's holding the monster there until its removed from the field or negated somehow.

Flipping the monster face-down, however, is what changes everything. This is where the "precedent" lies.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have an idea for a "compromise".
You skipped the default-thing at all, but you could say:

In the game face-up monsters do return by default.
In the game face-down monsters do not return by default.

These game mechanic rules could cause that the cards are ruled as they are. AGreed?

Edit: And if someone asks why are the 2 modes ruled differently? Then you could say that face-up and face-down modes are usually ruled differenly since game begin.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, not exactly. They way the cards are currently ruled is that face-up or face-down control does not revert by default.

Snatch Steal is a continuous control changer. By its nature it has to keep checking the monster in order to keep it on the field. If it can't, it doesn't. It's when we flip the moinster face-down that things are thrown for a loop. It's a mechanic that we may not like, but it still applies and doesn't change the way the existing mechanics function.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
But his first suggesion wouldn't be consistant. A face-up monster taken by Creature Swap does not return by default. Neither is there an effect that is keeping the monster there. Logic would dictate that neither orientation returns by default.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Now I think you made a mistake here.

By its nature it has to keep checking the monster in order to keep it on the field. If it can't, it doesn't.
-> If it is destroyed what returns the card back to the other side. The absence of the effect. The return is NOT part of the effect as far as I can tell. So the Game Mechanic returns it. This means that:

They way the cards are currently ruled is that face-up or face-down control does not revert by default.

can not be true. -- Are yu sure that this is the ruling for continous control changes?

Edit: the same when Imperial Order negates it -> the monster returns by the game mechanic.
And please dont use the ruling for non-continous control changes because that's another story. This is why you all said PRECEDENCE in the past few posts.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
No, I've been saying the same thing over again. I pointed out a while back that Snatch Steal continuously holds onto the monster. This is why I used the word "binding". It's different from the Normal Spell Card control changers becasue its not an effetc that resolves and the cad goes to the Graveyard. Its continuous and has to be face-up and equipped to maintain its "grip".

It not saying that monsters return by default. It just saying that it siezes cotrol in a different manner from the Normal Spells.

What I also stated before is that all that is irrelevant when the card is flipped face-down.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Its continuous and has to be face-up and equipped to maintain its "grip".
-> you must hold the grip or it will return by the game mechanics - this is the default! If no effect applies then the default is used by the game mechanic and it will revert the monster if your effect is not there (destroyed or negated).
What you are saying here is exactly the default functionality of the game mechanic for continous control.

If the default for continous control(!) would be "no revert", then when no effect applies the game mechanic would say -> no reverts. Thus when the card is negated or destroyed the monster would not revert.

For non-continous control the defualt is "no revert" for any mode. But for continous control default for face-up is changed to revert.

It is getting really clearer for me, I hope for you too :)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Fury said:
Its continuous and has to be face-up and equipped to maintain its "grip".
-> you must hold the grip or it will return by the game mechanics - this is the default! If no effect applies then the default is used by the game mechanic and it will revert the monster if your effect is not there (destroyed or negated).
What you are saying here is exactly the default functionality of the game mechanic for continous control.

If the default for continous control(!) would be "no revert", then when no effect applies the game mechanic would say -> no reverts. Thus when the card is negated or destroyed the monster would not revert.

For non-continous control the defualt is "no revert" for any mode. But for continous control default for face-up is changed to revert.

It is getting really clearer for me, I hope for you too :)
Click to expand...
No, that's not what I'm sayng at all. I very clearly stated in my last post that you Snatch Steal is a different kind of control changer. Its a Continuous control changer. It's effect is based on the idea that it must be continuously applied in order to gain control. This effect in no way proves that monsters return by default. It just a control changing effect with different requirments tp maintain control.

Otherwise, howwould you exlplain how a monster taken using Creature Swap remains on your opponent's side of the field.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Then how would that explain why the monsters selected by Creature Swap wouldn't return.
Click to expand...

As I said back on post #18
--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.
Click to expand...

This seems to be unique to the Equip Card mechanic of control change. As it certainly is not true of Creature Swap, nor does removing a monster from play that was affected by Change of Heart seperate it from ownership when it returns (even when that return does not happen until after the lingering effect of Change of Heart would have returned the monster.

A monster can not have the link to it's controller broken by being removed from play. And only a monster who's control was changed due to an Equip has the option of changing to full time control when it is turned face-down. This is just the facts of the weird Yugioh rules.

Creature Swap is a control changer period. No lingering effect to maintain hold on the monster. Change of Heart, Brain Control and the like are borrowers that do not truly change control of the monster and the affected monster will return to the owner whether removed from play or turned face down. And the Equip control changers seem to have this strange ability to convince the monster that if it is flipped face down it is no longer being held there but it has forgotten about who's monster it was before.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I find these two rulings interesting:
[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...
[Re: Embodiment of Apophis] If your opponent controls your "Embodiment of Apophis" as a monster with "Snatch Steal", and "Jinzo" is Summoned, it returns to your Spell & Trap Card Zone and remains there meaninglessly. If your opponent controls your "Embodiment of Apophis" as a monster because of "Creature Swap", and "Jinzo" is Summoned, it is placed on your opponent's Spell & Trap Card Zone and remains there meaninglessly.
Click to expand...
Very interesting indeed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Quote:
It just a control changing effect with different requirments to maintain control.
-> the different requirements come from being an equip card. And so the rules for it change.

I see you didnt notice that I had 2 rulings: 1. for non-continous and 2. for continous.
As far as I can tell Creature Swap is non-continous so group 1.
Snatch is group 2. so comparing them is useless here. Not to mention that you and others said that this is the precedence which means it creates a new group for itself (I mean Snatch).

Quote:
Otherwise, how would you explain how a monster taken using Creature Swap remains on your opponent's side of the field.
-> because Creature Swap is not a continous effect and so:

Quote from me:
For non-continous control the defualt is "no revert" for any mode.

I explained it. What now?

Edit: I have some comments about your "Erratas That Make Sense". I'll post them there.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
See, now we seem to missing the whole point of the arguments here.

Change of Heart, Mind Control, Enemy Controller al return monsters via thier effect. This does not preov monsters retuen by default if an effect is returning them.

Creature Swap does not return the monsters at the end of the turn or any other time. In fact Creature Swap says nothing about returning control or how long its effect lasts. Which also does not prove that a monster returns be default.

Snatch Steal, different from all these others, must maintain the monster for control to switch. But if that's proof that the monster does return by default, then the fact that it doesn't return if flipped face-down makes even less sence.

The Embodiment of Apophis rulings only reinforce the fact that monsters do not return by default.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Digital Jedi said:
Change of Heart, Mind Control, Enemy Controller al return monsters via thier effect. This does not preov monsters retuen by default if an effect is returning them.
Click to expand...
We know that and I never said something different.
Digital Jedi said:
Creature Swap does not return the monsters at the end of the turn or any other time. In fact Creature Swap says nothing about returning control or how long its effect lasts. Which also does not prove that a monster returns be default.
Click to expand...
It's good I never said that too. I said: "no returning" for all battle positions.

Digital Jedi said:
Snatch Steal, different from all these others, must maintain the monster for control to switch. But if that's proof that the monster does return by default, then the fact that it doesn't return if flipped face-down makes even less sence.
Click to expand...
It is proof that there is an exception for continous control when a monster is face-up, NOT when it is face-down. For face-down it is the same: no returning. But for face-up: returning. Else it wouldnt work at all because it IS a continous effect which CAN be negated during use.

Digital Jedi said:
The Embodiment of Apophis rulings only reinforce the fact that monsters do not return by default.
Click to expand...
I agree. As I said: face-down mosters dont return when using continous control.

Arguing with Creature Swap is a waste of my time, because it is NOT continous control. So the ruling for it is different anyway.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Creature Swap is NOT a waste of anyone's time. Only if you choose to ignore it. Why are you stuck on the notion of continuous control? What I am pointing out here is the status of these monsters after the effect of the control changers is no longer affecting them. Snatch Steal. Change of Heart, Creatur Swap all change control differently. But then when they no longer are affecting the monster, Game Mechanics would dictate what happens to them. The continuous effect of Snatch Steal has nothing to do with where the monster is going to go, as I keep saying. Your completelky ignoring one Game Mechanic to make your agument true. And thats just not going to work.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have to agree with Fury here. Comparing Creature Swap to Snatch Steal is kind of like comparing apples and oranges.

Creature Swap is not a continious control changer, since it only switches control of the two monsters once and doesn't need to nor ever checks for control again. Unlike Change of Heart, it has no effect, that would ever return the creatures to their original controlers.

Snatch Steal is different, in that it must always check to see whether it has control of the monster or not. If it does not (as is the case when Imperial Order is active), control of the monster is returned by default. This can be concluded by the fact that there are no effect present to explain why control of the monster is returned to its original controller. Since we know that control does in fact return to the monster's original controller, we must come to the conclusion it is because of game mechanics (since there is nothing else that can explain it).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top