Hello duelists, and welcome back to Court of Appeals! Every two weeks I'll answer your questions about card interactions, game mechanics and tournament policy submitted to email@example.com. I get quite a few submissions, and I most likely can't get to them all. To improve your chances of your e-mail making it to the column, please follow these ground rules...
-I will not answer new questions in the article Comments. If you have a related follow-up question to a question I answer here, you can ask it in the Comments and I will answer it in a reply.
-Please ask only one question per e-mail. Grammar, clarity and spelling helps, too.
- I will credit you with how you sign off on your e-mail. If you don't include a name in your signature, I will use your name as it appears in the e-mail's name field with your last initial.
-All answers I give are unofficial unless backed up by an official source.
-I'll be using official game terms whenever possible. If I use jargon (even jargon that is perceived to be universally accepted), I'll note that it's jargon.
-I'll note sources whenever possible.
-I'll always use the official card database as my card text reference. You can find the official card database here: http://www.db.yugioh-card.com/yugiohdb/
-I will not answer any questions about cards not released in the TCG.
Please be seated.
Connor G. writes…
Hello Judge Joe! How are you?
I have a ruling question regarding Lose 1 Turn. Can the trigger effect to switch a monster to defense position be used in response to the Special Summon of a monster, like Cyber Dragon, or even a monster that has an effect "if it is Summoned"? I've seen multiple sources suggesting both "yes" and "no" and I would love your help in clearing this ruling for me.
Thanks for all you do.
Yes, Lose 1 Turn may be flipped face-up and its effect activated as the same game action. Cyber Dragon will be turned to defense position when Lose 1 Turn resolves. That's a known game rule but it isn't currently in the rulebook. As long as the trap card's effect activation timing is correct, you may flip and activate the effect as the same action. It takes up a single chain link just as if Lose 1 Turn was already face-up.
#####CARDID= 18244 #####
Player A Summons Kozmo Dark Destroyer, while Player B has two sets and a defense position Berfomet' rel="https://yugioh.tcgplayer.com/db/WP-CH.asp?CN=D/D Berfomet">D/D Berfomet on the field. Player A targets their Dark Destroyer with its own effect and Player B responds with Bottomless Trap Hole.
There's some confusion as to how the chain is built and Player A resolves Dark Destroyer as link 2, Summoning Kozmo Sliprider to pop Player B's remaining backrow. The misplay is caught and play is rewound. Player A tries to re-declare the Dark Destroyer target as Berfomet, now knowing that Player B has Bottomless Trap Hole. Is this legal, or should it go back to when the chain originally attempted to resolve with Destroyer targeting itself and Bottomless banishing it as chain link 2? ~ Thanks in advance, Cole
Typically when a judge decides that a rewind is necessary due to an illegal or missed activation, you must rewind only to the point so that the illegal activation is undone, or back to the step, phase or game action where a mandatory activation was missed.
Speaking strictly from a rules perspective, Kozmo Dark Destroyer's effect is chain link 1 – with a target being declared before anything else happens - then Bottomless Trap Hole is chained. The targeting was legal, so a rewind back to the targeting wouldn't be appropriate. In my opinion, a proper rewind would go back to the Kozmo player having the chance to add to the chain after Bottomless Trap Hole was activated with the proper chain constructed as chain link 1 Dark Destroyer, chain link 2 Bottomless Trap Hole.
But, as this question is partly a player management issue, there may be other parts of the story that I'm not privy to that your judge may have taken into account.
Edward Gonzales writes…
I was dueling my friend recently and we ran into a sticky situation. It started when he summoned Satellarknight Deneb. I activated Bottomless Trap Hole and then he used Satellarknight Skybridge targeting Deneb. I used Fiendish Chain on his Deneb. Now since Fiendish is at the end of the chain, would Deneb still get its search effect?
Satellarknight Deneb will resolve successfully in this situation. While Fiendish Chain resolves first, it only negates Deneb's ability as long as Deneb's face-up on the field. Since Satellarknight Skybridge shuffles Deneb into the deck before the ability resolves, it's no longer negated and Deneb will resolve successfully.
Piro Alexander writes…
Heya Judge Joe! There's a ruling in the Ghostrick community that's been causing a lot of problems lately. The ruling in question is the second effect of Ghostrick-Go-Round – and by extension, Ghostrick Scare – that lets you flip your monsters up, then flip opponent's monsters down if you flipped a Ghostrick.
The issue arises if the opponent doesn't have a face-up monster: can the effect of Ghostrick-Go-Round be activated, as the game doesn't know if the face-down is a Ghostrick until AFTER it's been flipped? Also, is it an "and if you do" card or just an "and" card?
A lot of judges tend to approach this one differently, and it's by far the most disputed card in the deck. The argument against is that it can't be activated if there isn't a face-down, or that you can't flip a Ghostrick face-up if you DO use the effect. Also, some judges look at it as an "and" effect, whereas the ones that rule in favor say it's an "and if you do".
Thank you SO MUCH in advance if you can clear this issue up for us.
This is certainly an interesting question. There's always a huge blurry line between "what does the game know," "what does the player know," and "what does the game let the player do."
I'll reiterate that nothing I say here is an official "this is it" answer unless I back it up with an official source, BUT I'll answer this question and give my insight on this issue.
As I'm aware, the game recognizes a face-down monster as simply a "face-down monster" with none of its identifying characteristics like name, attribute, Level, type and so on. Going with that thought the game doesn't know if your face-down monster is a Ghostrick, which means the "flip an opponent's monster face-down" part of the effect isn't guaranteed to go off. I'd say that the opponent doesn't need a face-up monster to activate that effect.
If you'd like a guaranteed official answer, contact the appropriate e-mail address for rules questions. For North America, it's firstname.lastname@example.org. For Europe and Oceania, it's email@example.com.
Ricardo Vasquez writes…
Hello Judge Joe. I've been playing Noble Knights since their debut. I was siding in Constellar Belt against my opponent, who was playing Skill Drain beat and we came to a dilemma.
My opponent went first and just set three. When it came to my turn, I Normal Summoned Noble Knight Medraut, played Constellar Belt and then equipped Noble Arms – Caliburn, but my opponent chained Fiendish Chain targeting Medraut. We got lost on what happened next, so we called a judge and he claimed that Medraut was a vanilla since it couldn't appropriately activate its effect. What happens in this situation? And again thanks for reviewing my question!
Noble Knight's one of my favorite decks, so this question made me super happy! And this particular interaction is very noteworthy because of how Noble Knight Meduat and cards like it function.
Noble Arms – Caliburn is chain link 1 and Fiendish Chain is chain link 2. The chain resolves, Fiendish Chain negates Medurat and Caliburn's now equipped to it. Here's where it gets interesting. Constellar Belt doesn't stop Fiendish Chain from negating Medraut's continuous effect because continuous effects don't activate. Medraut usually becomes a Level 5 Dark monster while holding a Noble Arms, but that effect is negated, so it stays a Level 4 Light monster…
… wait, it's still a Light monster? Well that's totally ok! Because now you can use Medraut's Special Summon effect even while under Fiendish Chain, because the Special Summon ability does activate, so Constellar Belt will force the effect to resolve when it normally wouldn't have otherwise. Fetch another Level 4, Xyz Summon Artorigus, King of the Noble Knights, pop some backrows and go to town!
#####CARDID= 11685 #####
Dan T writes…
Hey Joe! I read your articles all the time and a buddy and I were just talking about conditions and illegal game states (Joe: As young men wont to do…). and I guess we just confused ourselves more haha.
With all the new Kaiju stuff on its way and with the theme's recent success, I was wondering how the condition of controlling only one works. I've looked all around and can't find official rulings.
Can you Special Summon Kaiju when you already control one? Can you activate Owner's Seal and Remove Brainwashing if you already control a Kaiju, then just choose one to send to graveyard? Is it kind of like Gozen Match where you can't Summon a new one if you already control one? I guess I'm just confused as to what cards I'm allowed to activate.
I know you said keep it to one question, but I feel like it's all kind of one topic that I'm sure people have wondered about! Thanks a ton for your time! ~ Dan T
It's very similar to how Gozen Match and Rivalry of Warlords work, yes. Basically, you can't Summon a Kaiju from your hand if you already control one. If you gain control of a Kaiju while you already have one on your side of the field, you have to send the newest one(s) to the graveyard immediately. That's as much as I know on an official basis.
And that's it for this week's Court of Appeals! If you have a question about card interactions, game mechanics or tournament policy, send me an e-mail (one question per e-mail please!) to firstname.lastname@example.org and your question could be answered in a future Court of Appeals!
Court is adjourned
Joe's a Yu-Gi-Oh! judge and player from Long Island, New York. He thinks that Odd-Eyes Pendulum Dragon is super underrated and wants people to know how good it is, but was told that putting a sign on a Long Island Expressway overpass wasn't a good idea.