What The? Can He Do That?

[DaRkNiTeOmEgA252]

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.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Again, it seems that my point is being completely ignored and, as a result, an important mechanic is being ignored along with it. What you need to look at, as I've stated a million times, is not the effect of Creature Swap or Snatch Steal. What you need to look at is the mechanic that takes over after those effects are no longer upon the monster.

I've been stating for, what, five to ten posts now, that Snatch Steal needs to maintain control in order to keep it, so your preaching to the choir on that one. What I'm stating now is that this Reasoning that because control is returned when the continuous effect is shut off that the monsters return is by default is a faulty Reasoning. Your letting the nature of Snatch Steal's effect mislead you and your ignoring what happens to a monster when a control changing effect is no longer upon it.

That is the key to the whole discussion here. The mechanic that comes into play when a control changing effect is no longer in effect. I already get that you think because Snatch Steal's effect is continuous that you think when it's negated or deactivated that the fact it returns the monster to the owner is evidence that it's returning by default. I get that. What I'm saying is that it's not evidence.

What I'm saying is that this effect is merely a different kind of control changing effect. That the only reason that it returns a monster when negated is because of its continuous nature. Not because of a mechanic that returns monster no longer under control.

If a monster, face-up or face-down, returned to it's owner by default then we have a series of erroneous rulings here. And this is where I seem to be being ignored. What does Snatch Steal's continuous effect have to do with anything after its been destroyed? What does Creature Swaps effect have to do with anything once it's resolved and gone to the Graveyard. Nothing. Absolutly nothing.

What matters now is Game Mechanics. And you have to ask yourself what Game Mechanic is keeping a monster no longer under the influence of any control changer on the opponent's side of the field.

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.

What's keeping it there? A lingering effect of both cards? Or a Game Mechanic?

What about when I take a monster using Exchange and summon it to the field? Is there a lingering effect of Exchange keeping the monster on my side of the field? Or is it a Game Mechanic?

What about when I Special Summon a monster with Conscription? Is the monste staying on my side of the field due to a lingering effect of Conscription? Or a Game Mechanic.

Lets face-it, if monster's returned by default thgere would be no need for a card like Remove Brainwashing because all our monster would be on our side of the field anyway.

The whole thing that is throwing you for a loop, like I've also said a million times, is the fact that we are talking about an Equip Card. Your taking the manner in which a monster is supposed to behave and completely turning it on its ear because you don't understand this one ruling in relationship to this Equip Card These are the mechaics of it. Try and fit your notion that monsters return be default into the the way the cards already work and it doesn't fit. ANd everytime I try to point out a Game Mechanic, I keep getting a "no that effect isn't the same" answer. If your going to ignore something, try ignoreing the effect for a minute and concentrate on the mechanics. You'll notice a huge difference.

 

[anthonyj]

If a monster, face-up or face-down, returned to it's owner by default then we have a series of erroneous rulings here. And this is where I seem to be being ignored. What does Snatch Steal's continuous effect have to do with anything after its been destroyed? What does Creature Swaps effect have to do with anything once it's resolved and gone to the Graveyard. Nothing. Absolutly nothing.

What matters now is Game Mechanics. And you have to ask yourself what Game Mechanic is keeping a monster no longer under the influence of any control changer on the opponent's side of the field.

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.

What's keeping it there? A lingering effect of both cards? Or a Game Mechanic?

Like I stated previously the monster being turned face-down seems to be the action that seperates the equipped monster from its owner. If it were only the fact that Snatch Steal is no longer equipped then we would have a different ruling for Different Dimension Gate since the monster when returned to the field would most certainly not be under the influence of Snatch Steal and does return to the opponent's side of the field before moving back to the owner. This is due to the nature and mechanic of an Equip Card that changes control of a monster. It is a continuous effect that "borrows" the monster from the opponent, if it is destroyed or negated the borrowed monster will immediately return to its owner because it is not being drawn by the continuous effect. However if the monster is turned face-down it "forgets" it was borrowed. There is no residual "return the monster" effect present in Snatch Steal or Dark Necrofear or Brain Jacker, they are a magnet pulling on the monster that is still "considered by the game" to be the original controller's monster. That link to the original controller is not severed by being removed from play. However the game mechanic severs that link when the borrowed monster is turned face down.

Now here is where it gets really fun. If you use Change of Heart (and by extension I believe this would extend to Enemy Controller, Jowls of Dark Demise, Brain Control, Mind Control, etc.) on a face-up monster, then turn it face-down with Book of Moon, even if it is removed from the game by Different Dimension Gate and misses the lingering effect of Change of Heart of returning it to the opponent, when gate is destroyed the face-down monster will return to the field of the opponent before it changes back to the original controller's side of the field. So it appears there is a clear ownership issue at a core level that refuses to be bypassed.

 

[exiledforcefreak]

-no
-it stays
-yes

 

[Tonylaudat]

When did ruling for Different Dimension Gate that states

"When your opponent's monster on your side of the field that you control with "Change of Heart" or "Snatch Steal" is removed with "Different Dimension Gate", it returns to your side of the field when "Different Dimension Gate" is destroyed, and then immediately returns to your opponent's side of the field." is true, then how can Change of Heart return a monster that it takes control of by its own effect (since that effect would miss its timing)??

This is another direct contradiction in yugioh rulings. I wonder, which ruling came out first, this ruling for Different Dimension Gate, or the ruling Change of Heart, becasue it appears that which ever one came out first is correct, and the latter is in error (since the latter ruling is in direct contradiction of the former, and it would be in error to create a ruling that is contradiction with an existing ruling).

anthonyj said

"Like I stated previously the monster being turned face-down seems to be the action that seperates the equipped monster from its owner. If it were only the fact that Snatch Steal is no longer equipped then we would have a different ruling for Different Dimension Gate since the monster when returned to the field would most certainly not be under the influence of Snatch Steal and does return to the opponent's side of the field before moving back to the owner. This is due to the nature and mechanic of an Equip Card that changes control of a monster. It is a continuous effect that "borrows" the monster from the opponent, if it is destroyed or negated the borrowed monster will immediately return to its owner because it is not being drawn by the continuous effect. However if the monster is turned face-down it "forgets" it was borrowed. There is no residual "return the monster" effect present in Snatch Steal or Dark Necrofear or Brain Jacker, they are a magnet pulling on the monster that is still "considered by the game" to be the original controller's monster. That link to the original controller is not severed by being removed from play. However the game mechanic severs that link when the borrowed monster is turned face down."

What game mechanic is being referend to in this last sentence?

What do you mean when you are talking about seperating the equipped monster from its original controller (I am assuming this is what you meant, since the link between monster and owner cannot be seperated) when it is flipped face down? Why does this not occur when that same monster is removed from play? You appear to be indicating that this is a unique event that only happens when a stolen monster is flipped face down.

Snatch Steal grants you control of an opponet's monster while it is active on the field. This is known, because if it is destoried or negated, then control of the monster reverts to its original contoller. You claim that this is becasue "is not being drawn by the continuous effect." Isn't this the same as saying that contol would revert to the original contoller becasue there is no effect allowing you opponet to contol your monster (which is to say by default).

You claim that when a stolen monster is flipped face down that it forgets that it was borrowed, and thus is unable to return to its original contoller. How does it forget that it was borrowed? Is this even revelant given that there is no event that returns a stolen monster to its original controller, but the termination of an effect?

Let's assume for the monster that the stolem monster forgetting that it was borrowed is revelant. Since it is known that a Stolen mosnter that is removed returns to its original contorller (after first reappearing on the side of the field that it left play on), in order for your argument to be correct, there must be a way for a monster that is removed from play to remember that it was "borrowed", and at the same time, this method must be unaviable to that same monster if it is instead flipped facedown.

Once a monster is removed from play, the monster's original controller is irrevelant, it is simply a monster that is removed from play (there is no seperate RFG zone for my opponet and I, just one RFG zone). In fact, cards such as Return from the Different Dimension specifically state to Special summon you monsters which have been removed from play (which seperates these monsters by who owns them, not who had control of them). If the monster is returned to the field, it reappears on the same side of the field that it was before, expect that Snatch Steal is no longer present. How does it know at this point that it was borrowed? There is no effect, telling it that was, and if that monster some how knew before it returned to the field (for example, if it being face up the entire time was revelant), wouldn't have returned to its original contoller in one shot, rather than switching sides after returing to the field?

 

[Digital Jedi]

When did ruling for Different Dimension Gate that states

"When your opponent's monster on your side of the field that you control with "Change of Heart" or "Snatch Steal" is removed with "Different Dimension Gate", it returns to your side of the field when "Different Dimension Gate" is destroyed, and then immediately returns to your opponent's side of the field." is true, then how can Change of Heart return a monster that it takes control of by its own effect (since that effect would miss its timing)??

This is another direct contradiction in yugioh rulings. I wonder, which ruling came out first, this ruling for Different Dimension Gate, or the ruling Change of Heart, becasue it appears that which ever one came out first is correct, and the latter is in error (since the latter ruling is in direct contradiction of the former, and it would be in error to create a ruling that is contradiction with an existing ruling).

What are you talking about? What contradiction? Didn't we establish already that control issues are reset when a monster leaves the field? The monster is returns to the previous controlers side first because of the effect that returns it to the field places it there. Then control reverts to the owner. It has nothing to do with any lingering conditions.

It's like your enforcing your idea of how control works and then saying that the rulings are wrong. Consider for the moment that your mistaken. Then the rulings will all gel. I don't know how else to explain it to you if you refuse to accept what is.

 

[Jason_C]

But WHAT pulls it to the opponent's field? By the time DD gate returns the monsters to field, they should have been severed from Change of Heart, and should return. Just like flipping a snatch'd monster down will cause Snatch Steal to be destroyed, but NOT cause the monster to revert. Why should removing from game not also sever these ties?

-pssvr

 

[masterwoo0]

What pulls it too the opponents side is whatever effect sent it out of play to begin with. That effect has to resolve first. In the case of D. D. Gate, once the effect brings the monster back to the field of play, it no longer has any ties to the new controller since the controlling effect has been removed, and it returns to the original owner.

 

[anthonyj]

The Change of Heart type effects are actually a one shot push to the other side of the field for the round. Instead of a residual effect that returns the monster at the end of the round it is more the timed effect wearing off at the End Phase. The pushed monster can be face up, face down, removed from play, it won't matter because it going to bounce right back as soon as this round is over.

For the Equip type control change the monster has been taken until it is no longer equipped. This is not a push with a predetermined end point. When removed from the field it is severed from the effect of Snatch Steal and immediately changes back to the Original Owner's control but as it was removed from play on the opponent's side it must return there due to the card that removed it before it can come back to the Owner's field.

It is important to remember that removed from play and turned face-down are completely different mechanics in the game although they do share some characteristics. They will both reset most of the once a round effect monsters, they will both leave the equip card unattached so it will be destroyed but they diverge greatly in the following: A set monster that is removed from play is now face-up out of play and public knowledge so both players know what the monster is, even if it will be returned to the field face-down. A set monster on the field is an unknown to the opponent (even if it was face up 1 moment ago and just now got turned face-down). It is this unknown status that seperates the monster from the Original Owner's control. It was taken with no predefined end, it was turned face-down thus returning to an unknown before it could re-establish it's connection to the Original Owner.

 

[Tonylaudat]

What are you talking about? What contradiction? Didn't we establish already that control issues are reset when a monster leaves the field? The monster is returns to the previous controlers side first because of the effect that returns it to the field places it there. Then control reverts to the owner. It has nothing to do with any lingering conditions.

It's like your enforcing your idea of how control works and then saying that the rulings are wrong. Consider for the moment that your mistaken. Then the rulings will all gel. I don't know how else to explain it to you if you refuse to accept what is.

Are you seriously suggesting that if I all of a sudden come to the revelation that my ideas of how Snatch Steal Vs a flipped down monster work, that will validate yours? How do you know that there is not a third idea, unknown to either one of us that when revealed will have us both saying that we were wrong. Even if my idea is wrong, it doesn't make yours right.

The reasons that I believe that a stolen monster that is flipped face down such return to its original controller are: (1) the game mechancis that state a monster need an effect to change what side of the field it is on, is based on Change of Heart (which doesn't apply to Snatch Steal). (2), the rulings for Snatch Steal that involve it being severed from the monster it took, or its effect being negated (Snatch Steal Vs Imperal Order, Snatch Steal Vs Strike Ninja, Snatch Steal, Vs Different Dimension Gate, etc.) appear to indicate when the effect of Snatch Steal no longer applies to a monster, control of that monster is reset, and (3) flipping a monster face down does not stop control of that monster from reseting when dicated by game mechanics.


First of all, all of the game mechanics that we have for monsters needing effect to move from one side of the field to the other, are all based on the ruling for Change of Heart that says that it returns the monster to its original controller at the end phase of the turn in which it was activated (This is known, because of the game mechanic was created first, the ruling would be redundent). Snatch Steal is not Change of Heart. As previously stated on this thread, Snatch Steal is a card that sets presedent. Snatch Steal is the only equip card/control changer that we have in the game (while I know that there are other cards that mimic Snatch Steal's affect, they are all based on Snatch Steal as far as how their effect fuction, this for purposes of this thread be considered to be identical to Snatch Steal). This is a siginificant difference that seperates Snatch Steal from Change of Heart. Becasue of this, the game mechanics for monsters needing effects to switch sides, which are all based on Change of Heart, cannot be applied to the functioning of Snatch Steal.

This leaves only the rulings for Snatch Steal to aid us in revealing what would happen if a stolen monster is flipped face down.

If Snatch Steal is negated by another card such as Imperial Order, the stolen monster is returned to its original contoller. This same event also occurs is Snatch Steal is destoried by MST or removed from the field by Giant Trunade.

Since there is no effect returning the monster, control of the monster must be reset upon Snatch Steal leaving the field. How else does the monster return to its original controller?

Now, lets say that we flip the stolen monster face down with a card effect such as Book of Moon. The current ruling is that the monster is flipped face down and remains on the side of the field which it was on while equipped with Snatch Steal. I disagree, and think that control such revert to the person from whom it was stolen. The main argument against my view is that the newly flipped down monster would need an effect to return to its original controller.

Lets explore this for a moment: Can a facedown monster have its control reset, or does this only apply to face up monsters? If we look at what happens when I flip an opponets monster (which I got control of through another card effect) face down, and then remove it from play with Different Dimension Gate. When Different Dimension Gate is destoried it appears that the monster would still return to play on my side of the field (still in face down Def postion), and then it would return to my opponet's side of the field. This is identical to the control reset that would occur if the monster was face up when it was removed from play. Thus being face down is not a barrier to a monster having its control reset through a game mechanic that would reset it.

Because of this, I would have to conclude that if a stolen monster is flipped face down, it would have its control reset(since Snatch Steal would no longer be equipped to the monster) in the same way that would is Snatch Steal's effect was removed from that same monster while it was face up.

 

[Fiction]

I don't see the point of all os this "discussing" the ruling is set, none of this bickering will revert it. You have no power or say in the way the game is played or set up. So why not drop it? You've both said your end of the discussion and Konami has given us theres. It's over it's just basically spamming up this thread. The questions were answered.

I mean think it's pretty simple to just planely say that when Snatch came out, the mechanic to put a face up monster face down did not even exist. Much to the point of Limiter Removal not un-doubling a monster's attack back to the original. So once Book of Moon was released and cards like Giant Axe Mummy that had the first thing ever seen about puting things face down. So Konami simply created this "newer" mechanic to control equips. Which is simply a equip card can not effect a face down monster.

If a monster equipped with "Big Bang Shot" is flipped face-down, it is no longer a target of "Big Bang Shot" so "Big Bang Shot" is sent to the Graveyard and the monster is not removed from play.

You can basically say equip cards "fall off" and no longer can effect the monster as now it is face down. You can choose to say it any way you like. But none of this is going to change the fact that the ruling has been made.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Are you seriously suggesting that if I all of a sudden come to the revelation that my ideas of how Snatch Steal Vs a flipped down monster work, that will validate yours? How do you know that there is not a third idea, unknown to either one of us that when revealed will have us both saying that we were wrong. Even if my idea is wrong, it doesn't make yours right.

The reasons that I believe that a stolen monster that is flipped face down such return to its original controller are: (1) the game mechancis that state a monster need an effect to change what side of the field it is on, is based on Change of Heart (which doesn't apply to Snatch Steal). (2), the rulings for Snatch Steal that involve it being severed from the monster it took, or its effect being negated (Snatch Steal Vs Imperal Order, Snatch Steal Vs Strike Ninja, Snatch Steal, Vs Different Dimension Gate, etc.) appear to indicate when the effect of Snatch Steal no longer applies to a monster, control of that monster is reset, and (3) flipping a monster face down does not stop control of that monster from reseting when dicated by game mechanics.


First of all, all of the game mechanics that we have for monsters needing effect to move from one side of the field to the other, are all based on the ruling for Change of Heart that says that it returns the monster to its original controller at the end phase of the turn in which it was activated (This is known, because of the game mechanic was created first, the ruling would be redundent). Snatch Steal is not Change of Heart. As previously stated on this thread, Snatch Steal is a card that sets presedent. Snatch Steal is the only equip card/control changer that we have in the game (while I know that there are other cards that mimic Snatch Steal's affect, they are all based on Snatch Steal as far as how their effect fuction, this for purposes of this thread be considered to be identical to Snatch Steal). This is a siginificant difference that seperates Snatch Steal from Change of Heart. Becasue of this, the game mechanics for monsters needing effects to switch sides, which are all based on Change of Heart, cannot be applied to the functioning of Snatch Steal.

This leaves only the rulings for Snatch Steal to aid us in revealing what would happen if a stolen monster is flipped face down.

If Snatch Steal is negated by another card such as Imperial Order, the stolen monster is returned to its original contoller. This same event also occurs is Snatch Steal is destoried by MST or removed from the field by Giant Trunade.

Since there is no effect returning the monster, control of the monster must be reset upon Snatch Steal leaving the field. How else does the monster return to its original controller?

Now, lets say that we flip the stolen monster face down with a card effect such as Book of Moon. The current ruling is that the monster is flipped face down and remains on the side of the field which it was on while equipped with Snatch Steal. I disagree, and think that control such revert to the person from whom it was stolen. The main argument against my view is that the newly flipped down monster would need an effect to return to its original controller.

Lets explore this for a moment: Can a facedown monster have its control reset, or does this only apply to face up monsters? If we look at what happens when I flip an opponets monster (which I got control of through another card effect) face down, and then remove it from play with Different Dimension Gate. When Different Dimension Gate is destoried it appears that the monster would still return to play on my side of the field (still in face down Def postion), and then it would return to my opponet's side of the field. This is identical to the control reset that would occur if the monster was face up when it was removed from play. Thus being face down is not a barrier to a monster having its control reset through a game mechanic that would reset it.

Because of this, I would have to conclude that if a stolen monster is flipped face down, it would have its control reset(since Snatch Steal would no longer be equipped to the monster) in the same way that would is Snatch Steal's effect was removed from that same monster while it was face up.

What opinion? I've been explaining the mechanics they way they currenly work. But there seems to be this opinion that the rulings are wrong and that they shouldn't work this way. I've just been trying to explain why they work the way they do. I can't do any more then that. I can't explain the way the rulings work any other way.

 

[Jason_C]

What pulls it too the opponents side is whatever effect sent it out of play to begin with. That effect has to resolve first. In the case of D. D. Gate, once the effect brings the monster back to the field of play, it no longer has any ties to the new controller since the controlling effect has been removed, and it returns to the original owner.

Right. So once a card has nothing holding it to one side of the field, it will revert to it's original controller, right? THat's what you said, isn't it? So if a snatch'd monster gets flipped, snatch is destroyed, and, in theory, the monster should revert to it's owner's field, right? Obviously, the rulings don't agree, but the logic makes perfect sense to me.
-pssvr

 

[masterwoo0]

A card taken by Snatch Steal and, say, Brain Control is entirely different.

You can (theoretically) compare it too loaning a friend your Car (Brain Control), versus, running into the local Quickie Mart, leaving your keys in the car with it still running (Snatch Steal).

One instance, the car is only being "borrowed" and more than likely you are expecting it back. The other instance, you can almost be assured you are not going to get it back unless you catch whoever took it. Now, lets say they take it too a chop shop (flip face-down). They are going to strip the car of its parts and even though you are the owner, you will probably not recognize those parts outside of your car (what card is it face-down).

Just having fun with the explanation.

Basically, a card taken by Brain Control is only a temporary effect regardless of the state of the card as long as it remains on the field, because it has a condition placed on it. The problem that many people have is, "Well, I took him face-up, flipped him face-down and removed him from play". Why should he still come back to my opponent (original owner) when it returns to the field?

Well, I would say that even though removing a monster from play resets the effect, it does not reset the condition "for" the effect.

As far as Snatch Steal and flipping it face-down, Snatch Steal, as we all know, can only be equipped to a face-up monster. When it's destroyed, control reverts back to owner. When monster is flipped face-down, the effect of doing so destroys Snatch Steal. You can't return the monster to its owner because there is no condition that requires you to do so.

As long as the two cards are face-up on the field together (and no other Snatch Steal is applied), you keep control of the monster and only relinquish it when Snatch is destroyed while the monster is still face-up.

Another explanation could be that even though you flip it face-down and remove it, it still flips face-up when removed, and face-down when returned, so that could also be the reason that it resets itself to knowing it is not your monster....