Most Frequent META Ruling Arguments | Melodious vs Negate, Tenpai vs Karma Cannon
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 май 2024
- Melodious vs different negation types, Tenpai vs Daruma Karma Cannon
Reading cards, conjunctions.
#yugioh #rulings #tenpai
Thanks for supporting us on Patreon: / msttv
Support MST via TCGPLAYER: bit.ly/3SIhdge
== MERCH STORE==
Show your support with AWESOME Merch!
www.mstmerch.com
We develop more cool merch and giveaways with your help!
== SOCIAL MEDIA ==
facebook: / msttv
twitter: @tomboxcreations
twitch: twitch.tv/msttv_tombox
Join the Discord: / discord
== PARTNER ==
Support MST via TCGPLAYER: bit.ly/3pbH6HJ
Ewin Racing Gaming Chairs: Use Code "MSTTV" for 20% off at bit.ly/3u695JL 
Игры
Yugioh cards not working how they read is hilarious to me. Karma Cannon says “as many as possible” not “all” or even “(minimum 1)”, so you’d think 0 would be a valid number with that wording. But it’s not, because Yugioh rulings.
The problem is the "then", which is considered "and if you do". 0 is valid it's just that if a doesn't succeed b won't trigger. It's still attempts to resolve just doesn't send because a card isn't booked
"I ate 0 cookies" is the exact same as "I didn't eat any cookies" so this is just semantics. "Then" requires "part a" to do something in order to proceed to "part b". For what you describe there is the "also" keyword. For example Sky Striker Multirole
_Once per turn: You can target 1 other card you control; send that card to the GY, also your opponent cannot activate cards or effects in response to your Spell Card activations for the rest of this turn_
Even if it doesn't send anything, the protection will still apply.
@@brandonshepard5303@babrad I don't think you get what he means. He argues that part A has successfully been done as "as many monsters as possible" have been flipped face down and 0 also counts. Obviously, it does not count though. I guess you could have worded the card better.
Mechanically "then" and "and if you do" are a bit different. Then is one after the other and and if you do is simultaneous. There are niche spots where the distinction matters but unless you play fish.dek it's not very common.
@@dtfreak2276 "He argues that part A has successfully been done" that's why I said it's semantics, since "I ate 0 cookies" means I didn't do the action of "eating" at all.
While I agree "(min. 1)" should have been used for clarity since this card doesn't lack the space for it (unlike the old Beatrice, Toon DMG or Relinquished texts), it would still be redundant since "all" and "as many as possible" have always been ruled to require at least 1 card/target/etc happening for them to be successful. That's also why I mentioned the "also" keyword. Ironically, this is one of the very few rulings that has been consistent.
Thank you Tom always appreciate these videos the most!!! I feel every new set we should go through each card and explain how it works!!!
Damnnnn me personally wishing you hadn’t mentioned the karma cannon ruling, I want people to attempt to flip cannon while they don’t have monsters lol
I know how Daruma works, but I still just have a grammar question about it...
It says *"Change as many monsters on the field as possible to face down".* Okay, say nothing gets flipped, so *0.*
0 is still a Possibility, the card never says that a card needs to be flipped face down, there is no "minimum 1/all" attached to it.
So therefore it has Applied the effect to flip monsters face down, its not like the effect wasn't applied, the answer was just 0 monsters were flipped and 0 is a legal number to fulfill the keyword *"possible".*
I think grammar wise the 2nd part should still resolve since it DID flip monsters facedown equal to the amount that was possible, 0. Even though I know it doesn't.
Its honestly quite fun to think about rlly, if anyone here would like to jump in on it please I would love to read it.
@@fredplaysbgs5756 TLDR; you flipped 0 monsters, so you essentially didn't perform any action. Since "then" requires "part a" to happen (where you did nothing) it stops applying there so "part b" is skipped.
Detailed:
This confusion comes from math, were people still argue if 0 should be considered positive or negative (answer: it's neither). Yugioh works more like real life where the concept of 0 means you didn't do something (saying "I didn't do x" instead of saying "I did 0 x"), or even better programming if you will.
For example the effect structure of [condition : cost ; effect] in ygo text is similar to branches/loops (especially Dark Worlds that are identical to nested ifs), where 0 can be equivalent to "false", or a counter of a specific action happening at least once (typically named as "flag").
Yeah I’d argue that nothing(0) was flipped so anything after or then can’t be applied I feel like this would be something you and your friends drunkly argue over at a duel night at a friend’s house and it would get put to a vote where the second half can’t be applied
Typically the "( )" are to explain rulings on new terminology or to throw in a limiter. On Kaiju slumber as many as possible the (min. 1) is explaining how it's ruled not functionality. Same with the ishizu cards when a chain of events bring someone's deck count under 5.
Absolutely vouch for the white sleeves. I don't there are better glossy sleeves on the market rn, especially for the price. I only wish there was a matte option!
It's been far too long since we've had one of these.
Anyone knows the background music name?
nice explanation!!
In regards to Bacha vs Negations, would Effect Veiler also be able to negate the monster since it has similar wording to Infinite Impermance?
You can Veiler/Imperm Bacha as it negates the entire card. Card effects like this (Veiler/Imperm/EPurrely Beauty/Chixiao) can negate it.
Question : Can Effect Veiler Negate Bacha ? 7:00
ok so wait answer me this if my opponent summons bacha and on summon they activate its effect and i go chain link 2 harpie's feather storm, would feather storm still resolve and negate bacha's effect?
Since Feather storm negates "the activated effects" (unlike Imperm or Skill Drain" Bacha's protection effect would be live. Then "Storm" tries to negate "the effect" and not "the activation" (unlike Baronne, Savage or Apollo) so the protection forces said effect to resolve successfully.
@babrad oh ok thank you for the explanation
so activations that cant be negated are negated by activation negations? whats it even protect then??
It still feel like Daruma Karma Canon should apply it's affect since it still satisfies it's first condition since the player tried to flip down as many cards as possible and there were none. It's like your example you said right afterwards where you can activate raigeki break on unaffected monsters but nothing would happen.
As you said, nothing happened so the "then" keyword stops the effect there since it requires the previous part to do something. If an effect told that you gain the ATK of every monster you destroy as LP, then you destroyed 0 monsters, your LP would stay the same. Saying "I don't get any LP" instead of "I gain 0 LP" is just semantics.
I need help with this, I have skill drain on my field and my opponent has the magic Branded Lost and summons Lubellion the searing dragon to the field, its merge effect can be negated by skill drain?
It will be negated by Skill Drain.
Branded Lost only prevents the *activation* of a card or effect that fusion summons from being negated whereas Skill Drain negates the effect.
Exactly as said by @iamnotmandjtv. For Branded Lost to protect the "Activation" AND the "Effect" it should have been worded like Altergeist Protocol
@@babrad what the diferent then?
@@RaineBarredo-qq1nk Branded Lost: The ACTIVATION of your [[[cards and effects]]] that include an effect that Fusion Summons a Fusion Monster cannot be negated
Altergeist Protocol: The activation and effects of "Altergeist" cards activated on your field cannot be negated
For Lost to protect from Skill Drain like Protocol, it would be written like this:
The activation of your cards and effects, or their effects, that include an effect that Fusion Summons a Fusion Monster cannot be negated.
The Revived Sky God
The activation of this card, or its effects, cannot be negated, nor can its effects be negated.
While this seems redundant:
- "The activation of this card" covers counters like Solemn Judment or Baronne that would negate the activation of the card on the field.
- "or its effects" covers counters like Baronne or Belle that would negate the activation of this card's effect in the gy
- "nor can its effects be negated" covers counters like Ash Blossom/Skull Meister saying "negate that effect" and also a floodgate effect like Trap Stun or End of Anubis.
Does imperm work against other melodious cards with bacha on field?
Bacha is only for fusion melodious
What’s the ruling with Bacha and Harpies Feather Storm?
Feather Storm only negates activated effects, meaning Bacha still applies its protection.
Your Melodious Fusion monsters activated effects will resolve successfully.
Q: Harpy Feather Storm was activated. My Opponent summons a Bacha.
Does the lingering effect of Featherstorm overwrite the "cant be negated"?
Or Is it the other way around?
Or does Bacha always take president?
Bacha wins, fatality
Also would like to know!
Bacha's continuous effect to prevent effect negation isn't negated, Feather Storm only negates activated effects. Therefore, Bacha WILL protect your Melodious fusions from being negated by the lingering effect of Feather Storm.
Since Harpy Feather Storm doesn't stop Bacha's continuous ability, it's effect to summon from the deck will not be negated by Feather Storm's lingering effect. To give an example using other cards, If you have The Splendid Venus and Jinzo on the field, your face up Continuous Traps do not have their effects negated (though Jinzo would still prevent you from activating any face-down traps as it prevents you from taking that action).
Dude I wish I knew about the karma cannon. I would have probably stuck with dinos lol. I got cannon while I had misc protection and I thought I had to send all my dudes away.
Disputed at locals: Flowering Etoile banishes until end phase, is banishing the cost and if the effect is negated do the cards still come back at end phase?
Banishing is not the cost, it banishes for effect. If the effect is negated it resolves negated and Etoile stays on the field
also another question i would like to ask if little knight comes back to the field from banished by its effect and mpen is on the field can little knight still activate it effect
Why would it?
@@chewdoom8415 i got told that cause little knight came from banished it doesnt remember it was special summoned so it can activate under empen
@@miicyah5 I could be wrong, but I think that applies to when it is special summoned by a specific method outside of general methods like xyz or synchro.
Hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong
it does remember it was special summoned, it doesn't remember what monsters were used for the summon.
Question regarding Yubel
In a match, my Yubel was destroyed by card and I attempted to activate Yubel effect to SS, my opponent chained and used a monster effect to banish my Yubel and then said since my Yubel was banished i can no longer SS, is this correct?
Another situation, my opponent chained my Yubel ss effect with mudora and said since he was put back in the deck, I can’t SS. Is that correct ?
I think they need to chain the shuffle effect in the previous chain. So for example with Seals, if you tribute to return a card as cl1, it goes to GY as the tribute is cost. Then, if your opponent chains dd crow as cl2 and nothing else is added to the chain, the chain resolves with Seal being banished and then the Seals target being spun. The seals is then unable to activate in a new chain because it cannot confirm it was tributed as its position was changed mid chain before it was able to apply its effect onto the chain. Same reason why summoning a rescue ace air lifter off of emergency before tributing it does not let you use air lifters effect to search. However, if you resolved the chain to pop your yubel and in a new chain you activate her trigger effect to summon as cl1, since it’s on the chain even if it’s moved it will still resolve since it’s a monster effect. It’s like if you normal summon tour guide and use her effect to summon from deck and your opponent activates a raigeki break as cl2, your tour guide dies but since her on summon effect is on chain and was not negated you still summon a level 3 fiend from deck.
Tl;dr if he chained mudora in the chain yubel was sent to gy, yeah yubel is shuffled and can’t confirm the destroy effect. If you cl1 yubel and they chain mudora they get fucked afaik. Idk tho I’m not a judge.
so i know its a dumb question but i played a tenpai player yesterday and lost because on my main phase one i tried to send is only monster on the field chundra with raiza to the top of his deck and he said i couldnt cause its unaffected so is this saying that it would have been sent to the top of the deck cause it is my main phase 1
dont laugh at me just need honest answer
Yeah, you got cheated buddy. Always make sure to read. The tenpai field spell says, "During your main phase 1"
@@johnkiggs108 thanks
@@miicyah5 another thing to note about Raiza, it's a mandatory effect so you have to do this even on their own MP but because Raiza uses "also after that" even if you don't return the unaffected monster to the hand/top of deck the 2nd part of the effect that returns a card to hand will still work properly.
Hey MSD can you do me a favor can you tell me if my opponent activates prayer of a voiceless voice original summon the skull guardian do I have the ability to respond with my bestial to manage the low in the grave or can they activate the skull guardian to negate The bystial mind you I'm activating the bystial when my opponent activates the ritual spell thank you in advance I really appreciate it
If you're activating the Bystial in response to the activation of Prayers then Skull Guardian hasn't even been summoned yet so there's no way they could respond with it.
(Lo also wouldn't have been tributed if that's how they're summoning Skull Guardian but I'm assuming Lo was in the graveyard already and they're using something else)
@@iamnotmandjtv no he activated the spell card lol was the card he used to ritual summon but thank you for the response I've been wondering how that specific interaction worked
@@joshcavins1477 if Lo has been tributed, then you've already allowed them to resolve Prayers and summon Skull Guardian.
In which case in a new chain your opponent would have priority to activate the trigger effects of Skull Guardian and Lo, then you would be able to chain your Bystial and target Lo.
Your opponent would not be able to use Skull Guardian's negate in this scenario since they would not have Lo on their field
@@iamnotmandjtv thank you for the information person I was playing said that low hits the field the same time skull guardian does I thought it was weird and wanted to get clarification on the ruling
Like he said that because he used low for the full tribute it immediately gets to come onto the field the same time as skull guardian does like he said that it's not a cost to summon skull guardian with prayer and to use the low which I thought was a little weird when he explained it to me
I know this is not a TCG question, but can you explain why Nibiru can't be used under Kaiser Colosseum?
Because you cannot use an effect that would summon monsters while Kaiser Colosseum is active if the opponent controls the same amount of monsters the owner of Kaiser Colosseum does. Even though Nibiru does tribute all monsters on the field, there are possible interactions that would make it not tribute your opponent's monsters before summoning itself, making the activation not legal (e.g. they chain Mask of Restrict, they chain an effect that makes their monsters unaffected, etc.) Same reason you can Ghost Belle something like Nadir Servant even if there are no Dogmatika cards/Fallen of Albaz in their GY, because there is a possible gamestate where you could add a card from the GY (even if an effect like Shifter is active where cards couldn't be sent to the GY regardless). So since there's a possible gamestate where Nibiru wouldn't tribute your opponent's monsters but would still summon itself, you cannot activate it under Kaiser Colosseum.
So to clarify daruma vs tenpai scenario 2
sangen summoning protects fire dragons during M1 from activated effects,. Since daruma successfully puts down a face down monster (doesn't matter whose field), the condition is met for the "then" part of the effect to resolve successfully. Which bypasses sangen summoning's continuous effect because this is no longer an activated effect, it's a resolving effect?
The sending part effects the player, not the card
@@chewdoom8415 thank you!
A "resolving" effect would be something like Mirrorjade destroying the board during the end phase, and at that time since you only apply the effect (it doesn't activate again) it isn't considered an activated effect (the reason it bypasses Noir that has the same protection as Sangen)
Also "affects the player" isn't correct and shouldn't be used, this is an effect that forces a player to make an action. Same as evenly. Same as IP or Tribrigade Revolt forcing a Link Summon.
Finally another interesting ruling is Samsara D Lotus. While FIRE Dragons are unaffected by activated card effects, Samsara (and Phantom of Yubel) change that effect to something different, so they work bypassing the field spell's protection.
U going to Indy?
Ruling question: Can Xyz monster be targeted for a level modulation effect like Uni-zombie? I assume not because Xyz has ranks, but i just want to be sure.
As a zombie player I would say no bc they don’t have lvls to increase
What about Bacha vs Bagooska?
Resolve not negated
You are the best
Melodious question: Can You Ash Blossom an Ostinato under Dimension Shifter?
Ostinato is not attempting to "send cards from the deck to the GY", it's trying to Fusion Summon using monsters from the deck, and because of D. Shifter none of them would go to the GY...
Aren't you still attempting to send cards from the deck to the graveyard even under Shifter?
It is attempting to send them from deck because you have to send the cards from the deck to the gy as fusion material. Shifter just changes where the cards would go. Ash does not care about what about what happens upon resolution
@@DonaDagger Yep.
@@DonaDagger Functionnaly, but Ostinato never says "by sending materials from the hand or deck to the GY" or anything similar, it's just asking to "use materials from the hand or deck". It doesn't care where they go, they simply go to the GY by game mechanics, which under Shifter wouldn't apply anyway, hence my question.
Please let me win Rarity 1 so I can have a chance to open it since I never did get a chance to open any packs :(
Daruma says "as possible". That's the key word - possible. How tf does it not resolve to send the tenpai to grave? If the wording is so important in ygo, why does no one follow the actual wording instead of what they perceive it to be?
Probably the biggest nitpick but nobody pronouncing bacha as they pronounce bach actually bugs me
same tho
Wait do you not say baka
@@Code117 yes, you do xD
If its says during main phase 1 and not ''your'' main phase 1 doesn't mean either players main phase 1? It kinda sounds like that to me. Also you contradicting yourself. A month ago you put a similar video with opposite results. It was Soul of Anguish vs Paidra under Sangen Summoning. Back then Soul of Anguish couldnt resolve the effect because Sangen Summoning but now it can? How does that work? ruclips.net/user/clipUgkxNvs3ly51GbkFeqNHm2IfZ_xWtORn9tUm
It would. But read Sangen Summoning, first sentence is "During YOUR Main Phase 1"
Karma cannon thing is like 2 weeks old but I guess better late than never 🤷🏻♂️