Thanks to HelloFresh for sponsoring today's video. Go to strms.net/hellofresh_msttv, use my code MSTJUL10, and receive 10 free meals + free appetizers for life! One appetizer item per box while subscription is active if you’re in the US. The link and code are valid in all countries and the respective local discount will apply.
The Closed Heaven argument is ridiculous, the card was specifically made to work that way with Goddess and allow you to use 2 mats from your opponent's field, like the card was created for exactly that purpose
I love Blazar, i had someone droplets it while they had Typhon on board. They attack it and i activate the battle effect because now its under the 3000 restriction. Banish it and it comes back to 4000 for a satisfying win
@@TylerTyyang it resolves with no effect. It's the cost that beneficial since it banishes itself for cost, it coming back during the end phase is part of that.
@@TheDakotaCruiser The banishment as cost was not the point of that interaction to begin with, the entire point was that Blazar uniquely has the return as part of the cost. Lots of cards remove themselves from the field as cost.
To be fair, before Crimson Dragon, Cosmic Blazar wasn't summoned outside of garbage pure Synchron decks and players who haven't encountered it before will be flabbergasted on how broken it reads
For the first tenpai rulling, the vaalmonica trap vaalmonica followed rhythm says "in sequence" destroys the field spell, and then return 1 monster on the field, the monster will be returned right?
Correct. Because "in sequence" affects do not apply simultaneously, the field spell will have already left the board when the game attempts to resolve the return to hand effect
@@thecalieffect We are from different places but 32c , 89.6f is pretty hot over here. Tthe hottest heatwave Ive ever been is at 107.6f or 42c. which kinda cooked my computer and warped my cards.
Hi Tom Box! What are the rulings around Ra Sphere Mode and Spell Card "Soul Exchange"? For instance can I use Spell Card SE to summon Ra to my oppenents field and still have a normal summon or?
Someone was trying to tell me that Fiendsmith's Desirae can negate dark ruler no more, because it has equip. And also they can use one of the equips as fusion material
They arent wrong... they aren't entirely right. For Desirae, if the opponent plays DRNM and they chain Spell/Trap card Reopening the chain for monsters, Desirae can negate Dark Ruler yes by activating D, because the lock only applies in response to Dark Ruler, it doesn't apply to the entire chain,. And they can use the equip as a fusion material for contact fusing AS A fiend monster card. Like therion monsters are able to send Therion Monster Cards Equipped for the effect cost... They just need to be more specific to how theyare applying those effects in their appropriate context.
Just got back into collecting again. I pulled a QCR Mulcharmy Purulia last night and the TCGplayer price was close to 200$. Ill never play competitive games (I only keep simple decks around the house for casual games with my family, like structure decks and simple decks) so I dont really have a need for a high end card like that. Should I trade it in at my local shop or should I sell it online or should I keep it?
I'm so far off the mark for thinking this, but I still don't understand why Cosmic Blazar Dragon in the example doesn't negate Raigeki. Dark Ruler no more says negate the effects of face up monsters your opponent currently controls until the end of the turn. So I activate CBD effect, pay cost by banishing until End Phase (although that cost technically can't be fully paid until the end phase, right; what happens if you activate different dimension reincarnation targeting Cosmic Blazar Dragon, cost would be unfulfilled as it would not be banished until end phase), when that effect resolves, CBD is not face up on the field. It's face up in the banish zone so why are it's effects negated? I get that effects resolve where they are activated and this was activated on the field, but the card is objectively not face up on the field at time of resolution. If DRNM resolves and on a new chain your opponent activates Raigeki CL1, you activate say Borreload Savage dragon's negation as CL2, and Book of Moon CL3, that BSD resolves negating the activation of Raigeki, right since BSD is no longer face-uup? Why is it different for banishing where CBD is no longer face up?
Paying the cost happens as part of activating the effect. When you activate CBD, you *immediately* attempt to banish it, and assuming there's nothing stopping you from doing so, it gets banished, and *then* the window for CL2 opens.
@@TeamDreamhunter Oh thanks for responding, I'm going to edit my original question, since book flips on resolution and is clearly different than banishing in the activation window as cost for CL1. What I'll be trying to ask is that if book resets the negation, why doesn't banishing?
@@thegreatbambino3358because Dark Ruler No More is not Skill Drain/Destiny HERO Plasma, it's an Infinite Impermanence/Veiler/Mourner for all your opponent monsters and monsters effects resolves from where they activated. If ya use Impermanence/Veiler/Mourner on your opponent Blazar and they for some reason don't use the negation, the next time your opponent use Blazar effect on that turn, he'll resolve negated
the cosmic blazar dragon seems to have 2 descriptions one that would support the ruling you gave and the new one which would not, DUSA-EN034 this is the og print and this is the reprint with what i assume is an errata, LED6-EN029. so on the second cared the effect entirely would be negated and would not be able to banish itself
@@Poppipower well one says banish to activate and the other says quick effect banish to activate effect so one says cost and effect and the other says effect for effect this is where I’m getting lost
The only thing the errata did was slightly alter the formatting to align with the formatting other cards with Quick Effects have. The cost of Blazar is the same on both prints of the card.
Quick question I assume this works but can goddess be summoned by using 2 unaffected monsters?(one by lil goddess’s effect since it affects the player)
Question❓: Chain 1 paidra, opponent: chain 2 negate paidra, opponent: chain 3 destroy sangen summoning. Does paidra get negated or is it still protected by sangen summoning?
I know I might be late on this, but could you do a ruling video on Trap monsters? Because at my locals, someone was trying to tell me that if they Imperm my Stronghold the Hidden fortress, it will return to the spell&trap zone, but Imperm only negates monster effects so why would the card return to the backrow, and I even tested on master duel, but they still don't believe me that a monster effect negate doesn't send a trap monster back
Well, it depends. Was Infinite Impermanence set in the same column as Stronghold? If no, then yes, you are correct, only the monster effect is negated, and it will not return to the backrow. However, if Infinite Impermanence was set in the same column as your Stronghold, the effect to negate spell and trap effects in the column will apply, even if Stronghold is in the monster zone of said column, and thus will have its trap effect negated that allows it to be a monster, thus causing it to return to the backrow.
I have a question. In the second exemple of moon of the closed heaven, what hapens if the monster is a tenpai protected with sangen? It allows to link with the tenpai monster, because moon's effect is a continuous like, but what happens if i try with I.P. effect? Not allowed because it's a activated effect?
Moon of closed heaven would not work because you are still activating an effect and applying it to the monster. Ip works because using an opponent's monster is goddess's summoning procedure
I;P is unique because it's effect activates and resolves. At that resolution you perform the Link Summon. You can if the Opponent tries to I;P if it was activated as CL1, say you try to change the phase, Activate Solemn Judgment on that summon of the Link Using I;P, again only as if it's CL1
I:P's effect is a lot simpler than ya think, it just allows ya to perform a Link summon as Spell Speed 2 so even if the Tenpai Field Spell is face-up on your opponent field, ya can use I:P and only 1 monster your opponent controls to summon Goddess (the Link-5)
So i got thw Quasar ruling right with the Wrong Logic. I assumed it was like OG Stardust and was a seperate effect to activate, also since when is Banishment Immune to "destroy" effects?
Question for the first example with sengan: can i ash the monster search and then chain desirae to negate the field spell? If so, would the ash end up negating their monster's effect to search?
So I normal summoned a monster that special summoned a monster from the grave in face down defense. I revealed the monster before setting it face down. place some back row face down and then pass turn. my opponent starts to make a board and enters battle but then attempts to look at my face down monster stating that because it is public knowledge he is able to look at the face down monster that was set from the grave. I was always under the impression that when a monster is set, public knowledge or not, the opponent can no longer obligated to have the card re-revealed. I allowed him to look at it because I have been out of the tournament scene for a while. but was I mistaken and he was allowed to the info or should I stuck to my thoughts.
Cards are public knowledge the turn they have been added to hand, set by card effect, etc. Because your monster was set on your turn then became your opponents turn it is no longer public knowledge.
Aside from face-down banished cards which only the owner can check on theirs, the GY and banished face-up, everything else is public knowledge on the turn they are revealed/summoned/used
My opponent controls a monster while "There can only be one" is face up on the board" with "Zombie World" and actives "Big Welcome Labyrinth" They proceed to SS it & then add it to hand. Wouldn't the new SS monster be sent to GY before they could return a monster to the hand. My opponents been arguing since this happens in "Master Duel" it must be right but I'm doubtful of this logic because "Master Duel" seems to have a plethora of incorrect ruling logic
You do not apply continuous effects in the middle of the resolution of a chain link. You are probably thinking of some of the weird rulings TCBOO has with cards like Bujinki Ahashima, but those only resolve the way they do under TCBOO because you resolve the effect, then, after the effect has resolved, you'd perform the Xyz summon, but before you can do that, TCBOO kicks in to send one monster to the GY. If a card does multiple things within the resolution of the chain link, you do them first, and only after the chain link has resolved, do you apply continuous effects.
Actually, I have a ruling question too. Let's say I go to battle with my Link 5 Cosmic Tree Irmistil to attack my opponents monster. During damage step, I activate his effect to boost his attack at the cost of my own lifepoints. However, my opponent has "that's ten" on his side of the field. Would "that's ten" activate during the damage step?
Yes it will because it's a trigger effect that doesn't exclude itself from the Damage Step but if that was the 10th counter and your opponent used the effect to set from Deck, they would need to wait until the attack is over because a Continuous Trap card that summons itself as a monster can't be activated during the Damage Step unless it has an effect that deals with direct ATK/DEF manipulation
@@6210classick That's what we figured. Usually continuous S/Ts that manipulate attack and defense don't activate during the damage step so it was a weird situation.
@@6210classick "That's 10!" cannot activate in the Damage Step. Konami just forgot to put the reminder text on there, but the rules for what can and cannot activate in the damage step still apply. Because it is not an effect that negates the activation of a card or effect, an effect that directly alters ATK/DEF (it only indirectly alters it with the continuous effect, but the counter placing effect does not alter stats), an effect that triggers when it itself moves location, or an effect that explicitly says it can activate in the damage step, you cannot activate its effect to place a counter on it.
@@JamesNintendoTurd trigger effects that don't exclude themselves from the Damage Step can be activated there, it's Damage Calculation that is stricter
@@6210classick Unless there's a TCG only rule that says that trigger effects without the reminder text can activate in the Damage Step, no, you cannot activate "That's 10!". There's a clear list of rules as to which effects can and cannot activate in the damage step, which "That's 10!" does not fall under, and the OCG rulings database also directly states that it cannot activate in the damage step. The only thing that's stricter about Damage Calculation and after compared to before damage calc is that ATK/DEF modifiers cannot be activated anymore once you reach Damage Calculation, unless the ATK/DEF modifying effect explicitly states it can activate during Damage Calculation (or later), otherwise, the rules for what may activate in the damage step is the same throughout the whole thing. "(except during the Damage Step)" is purely reminder text that exclusively exists in the TCG in the first place. You can of course make the argument that because it lacks the reminder in the TCG, a judge coullld rule that it can activate, but it most certainly is not intended to be activateable in the Damage Step, based on OCG rulings.
Wouldnt you be able to prevent cosmic blazar from coming back if you take it out of the banish pile? It you return it to grave or put it back in the extra then it can't come back.
Because Hugan is a Destruction replacement effect. Cards marked for destruction cannot use destruction replacement effects if everything is marked, in current deck terms, Muckracker vs Terror Incarnate EP effect. Since TE destroys everything but itself, there is 1 card not marked.for destruction, so destruction replacement of Muckracker can be used to tribute off the Yubel TE instead, triggering it's effect to summon Ultimate Nightmare if you are a Gigachad for actually playing the card
To clarify, destruction replacement effects cannot be used if whatever you'd use to replace the destruction is also marked for destruction. If you control Dingirsu for example, you can still use his destruction replacement effect even if everything on the field is marked for destruction, because his replacement is detaching a material, rather than sending/banishing a different card as replacement.
@@6210classick That depends. If the last thing to happen on the chain is a field wipe, as would be the case for Terror Incarnate's End Phase effect, then Muckraker replacing it by tributing Terror Incarnate would cause the last thing to happen be that Terror Incarnate left the field, so you could activate to summon Ultimate Nightmare.
In fear of sounding like a moron: Runick players still have to declare when they WOULD have entered the battle phase, and thus you proceed to end phase. Since if they just end their turn, the "next battle phase" that runick cards apply to would be on the runick players NEXT turn. Correct?
You are correct, but as stated in the video, in-person events in general rule that the Battle Phase skip was implied even if you don't explicitly state it, because otherwise you'd constantly get people calling judges for the express purpose of rule-sharking
@@JamesNintendoTurd I see why judges make the general assumption of battle phase skip. Time saving and prevents trying to untangle a "he said she said" monster. But I'd argue that assuming the runick player skipped their battle phase is much more rule sharking than insisting they declare the existence of a skipped battle phase. As if you do not declare the skipped battle phase, I might try and play more conservatively, trying to chip away at my opponent's resources with unconventional plays under the knowledge that they do not have a battle phase to kill me with next turn. And then they get a judge to say "Yeah, battle phase skip happened, regardless of declaration" when I try to call a judge to reinforce that they should not have a battle phase. Since unlike the Draw, Standby, Main 1 and End Phases, the battle phase is not mandatory. So between, "I am attempting to enforce the restrictions of your cards" and "Well it's just assumed I did it." I think the latter reads more like sharking than the former. My solution to this would be a card or coin or something which both players agree that one side is "Next battle phase will be skipped" and "Next battle phase is not skipped" probably better a card with both written on it. And then, during EP the runick player can flip the card to the "Next battle phase is not skipped" side to indicate that they skipped their battle phase, and if they do not flip it they are left with it until the end of their next turn. Hardly perfect, but much better than "I can just forget the back blasts of my cards because the judges can't be wasting time to decipher whether or not I have a battle phase."
I don't know why I watch these. I always get annoyed at these videos. Can we have the text of the card in question before the explanation? It would be more helpful to let us actually try to figure out the ruling before having it explained so that we can understand where our logic went off track.
@@RoyaltonDrummer922 this isn't a live stream that is hours long with the possibility of the vod not getting uploaded, it's a pre-recorded video that ya can watch at any time
wait you said when you skip your battle phase you go to end phase and no main phase 2. im not crazy to hear that 😵💫 can you explain that again please? 14:35
The runick ruling is always going to be one of those weird things where its just a Konami said so thing. No where in the rulebook do you have to declare you are attempting to enter battle or end when you are leaving MP1. Why do you need to declare you are attempting to enter battle? Is this also an OCG ruling?
Page 36 and 37 of the rulebook makes it clear you do not have to conduct your battle phase. You're allowed to skip straight to the end phase if you want. The ruling for runik is that, if you chose to just not enter the battle phase, your turn didn't have a battle phase to skip, so you havent skipped your next battle phase yet. I think they should just say "skip all the battle phases of your next turn" on the runick cards to avoid all this, but the current wording is logically consistent.
I think the issue is Konami wants u to declare your intentions. Every turn has a bp but not everyone will take it. So if u have intentions to enter bp then u or the OPP should make that known. I will always ask if the runick player is skipping the next bp due to a card effect or choice.
I'm so glad that first ruling works that way. That's why when I'm playing Mikanko in Master Duel and my monsters are protected by their equip spells, and my opponent activates something that destroys all cards on the field, they all get destroyed regardless of the protection and I lose every time ...oh wait-
These ruling clarifications are instrumental, but more importantly, the repeated advise to always call forth a judge when in doubt is indispensable. Commemorating Ulti-Cannahawk no longer on the F & L list. 🐦 ⚡️
Not only would the Cosmic Blazar come back at the end phase, but he would also still negate raigeki. dark ruler states "negate the effects of all face-up monsters your opponent controls, until the end of this turn,...". Blazar wouldn't be a face-up monster at the resolution of his effect, so his effect would still go through.
Cosmic Blazar Dragon activated its effect on the field while that effect was negated. Even though Cosmic Blazar Dragon left the field as part of the cost to activate its effect, the effect remains negated because it was negated at activation and there is no superseding clause in the negating effect. (For example, Cosmic Blazar Dragon can negate under Skill Drain, as Skill Drain says to negate monsters’ effects while they remain face-up on the field.)
every made up ruling is always backed by some human element attempting to take bits and pieces of logic and string together an Argument that seems ok at first glance.
@@torchofgenesis i’m trying to understand what you mean by this. are you saying people who try to chain with ignition effects or ignition effect priority in general?
Ignition priority wasn't any faker than Effect Veiler stops working in the End Phase was. They changed the rules because it did work like that,, just like how they changed the wording on Veiler.
Thanks to HelloFresh for sponsoring today's video. Go to strms.net/hellofresh_msttv, use my code MSTJUL10, and receive 10 free meals + free appetizers for life! One appetizer item per box while subscription is active if you’re in the US. The link and code are valid in all countries and the respective local discount will apply.
The Closed Heaven argument is ridiculous, the card was specifically made to work that way with Goddess and allow you to use 2 mats from your opponent's field, like the card was created for exactly that purpose
EXACTLY!! But we are talking about people about the lose, creating an argument and attempting to branch of pseudo Yugioh logic.
@@MSTTVI love how you worded that.this has happened to me so many times where people about to lose all of sudden forget basic rulings.
I was going to comment this exactly
@@MSTTVbro really trying to win any means necessary 😂
I got the Blazar ruling correct for playing Synchron religiously for several years
I love Blazar, i had someone droplets it while they had Typhon on board. They attack it and i activate the battle effect because now its under the 3000 restriction. Banish it and it comes back to 4000 for a satisfying win
How does blazar resolve effect if it's negated by droplet?
@@TylerTyyang it resolves with no effect. It's the cost that beneficial since it banishes itself for cost, it coming back during the end phase is part of that.
For a casual-competitive player like myself, being able to review your videos is a lifesaver. Thanks mate!
the first one verys similar to the old mystic mine/field barrier issue back in the day when it came to twin twister.
Video starts at 3:45.
13:43 saving it for later, nice explanation
Congrats on 100k Nishi and Tom!!!🎉🎉❤
Cosmic Blazar…same principle as the Weather Painters
The weather effects activate to return, nowhere near the same
@@nyanter2179 I was referring to the banishment as cost
@@TheDakotaCruiser The banishment as cost was not the point of that interaction to begin with, the entire point was that Blazar uniquely has the return as part of the cost. Lots of cards remove themselves from the field as cost.
I had someone ruleshark someone by saying they were cheating by not announcing draw phase.
They announced standby main all that but bruhhhh
how many times do players have to learn that paying costs can never be negated?
To be fair, before Crimson Dragon, Cosmic Blazar wasn't summoned outside of garbage pure Synchron decks and players who haven't encountered it before will be flabbergasted on how broken it reads
I'm surprised I'm not seeing more mirage mirror Force being played in white forest
For the first tenpai rulling, the vaalmonica trap vaalmonica followed rhythm says "in sequence" destroys the field spell, and then return 1 monster on the field, the monster will be returned right?
Yes, why not?
Correct. Because "in sequence" affects do not apply simultaneously, the field spell will have already left the board when the game attempts to resolve the return to hand effect
Knew the first ruling from mecha phantom beast protection vs dark hole back in the day lol
5:06 another recent example of this is duster + fire king island and fire king sanctuary
Love these videos you make G! What do you consider a heatwave where you at?
32+ Celsius
@MSTTV I need to be where you at. 🤣🤣 I'd be overjoyed at 32.
@@thecalieffect We are from different places but 32c , 89.6f is pretty hot over here.
Tthe hottest heatwave Ive ever been is at 107.6f or 42c. which kinda cooked my computer and warped my cards.
@MSTTV, thanks for the video it was very informative .
Honestly crazy to see a hellofresh sponsor in a yugioh video, congrats brother 🎉
I always picture mass distruction as if theres a card that protects it has armor and the distruction hits the armor
Tombox using magical musket cards as an example and not rafflesia vs torrent makes me feel old.
Hi Tom Box! What are the rulings around Ra Sphere Mode and Spell Card "Soul Exchange"? For instance can I use Spell Card SE to summon Ra to my oppenents field and still have a normal summon or?
Someone was trying to tell me that Fiendsmith's Desirae can negate dark ruler no more, because it has equip. And also they can use one of the equips as fusion material
They arent wrong... they aren't entirely right. For Desirae, if the opponent plays DRNM and they chain Spell/Trap card Reopening the chain for monsters, Desirae can negate Dark Ruler yes by activating D, because the lock only applies in response to Dark Ruler, it doesn't apply to the entire chain,.
And they can use the equip as a fusion material for contact fusing AS A fiend monster card.
Like therion monsters are able to send Therion Monster Cards Equipped for the effect cost...
They just need to be more specific to how theyare applying those effects in their appropriate context.
@@MSTTV thank you for clarifying it, Konami really needs to make a app for Q&A
Desiare ruling with summoning also applies to “Silhouhatter”
:) glad i was able to get the correct ruling on all these situations. Good vid mst
Just got back into collecting again. I pulled a QCR Mulcharmy Purulia last night and the TCGplayer price was close to 200$. Ill never play competitive games (I only keep simple decks around the house for casual games with my family, like structure decks and simple decks) so I dont really have a need for a high end card like that. Should I trade it in at my local shop or should I sell it online or should I keep it?
I'm so far off the mark for thinking this, but I still don't understand why Cosmic Blazar Dragon in the example doesn't negate Raigeki. Dark Ruler no more says negate the effects of face up monsters your opponent currently controls until the end of the turn. So I activate CBD effect, pay cost by banishing until End Phase (although that cost technically can't be fully paid until the end phase, right; what happens if you activate different dimension reincarnation targeting Cosmic Blazar Dragon, cost would be unfulfilled as it would not be banished until end phase), when that effect resolves, CBD is not face up on the field. It's face up in the banish zone so why are it's effects negated? I get that effects resolve where they are activated and this was activated on the field, but the card is objectively not face up on the field at time of resolution. If DRNM resolves and on a new chain your opponent activates Raigeki CL1, you activate say Borreload Savage dragon's negation as CL2, and Book of Moon CL3, that BSD resolves negating the activation of Raigeki, right since BSD is no longer face-uup? Why is it different for banishing where CBD is no longer face up?
Paying the cost happens as part of activating the effect. When you activate CBD, you *immediately* attempt to banish it, and assuming there's nothing stopping you from doing so, it gets banished, and *then* the window for CL2 opens.
@@TeamDreamhunter Oh thanks for responding, I'm going to edit my original question, since book flips on resolution and is clearly different than banishing in the activation window as cost for CL1. What I'll be trying to ask is that if book resets the negation, why doesn't banishing?
@@thegreatbambino3358because Dark Ruler No More is not Skill Drain/Destiny HERO Plasma, it's an Infinite Impermanence/Veiler/Mourner for all your opponent monsters and monsters effects resolves from where they activated.
If ya use Impermanence/Veiler/Mourner on your opponent Blazar and they for some reason don't use the negation, the next time your opponent use Blazar effect on that turn, he'll resolve negated
the cosmic blazar dragon seems to have 2 descriptions one that would support the ruling you gave and the new one which would not, DUSA-EN034 this is the og print and this is the reprint with what i assume is an errata, LED6-EN029. so on the second cared the effect entirely would be negated and would not be able to banish itself
No, both say you can banish this card until the end phase
@@Poppipower well one says banish to activate and the other says quick effect banish to activate effect so one says cost and effect and the other says effect for effect this is where I’m getting lost
@@Poppipower they do not say the same thing in the slightest that small text change, changes alot
The only thing the errata did was slightly alter the formatting to align with the formatting other cards with Quick Effects have. The cost of Blazar is the same on both prints of the card.
Quick question I assume this works but can goddess be summoned by using 2 unaffected
monsters?(one by lil goddess’s effect since it affects the player)
I knew the Blazar rulling because of previous interactions with Solemn Strike, if you negate blazar effect he still returns.
Blazar always makes a sequel appearance.
Question❓: Chain 1 paidra, opponent: chain 2 negate paidra, opponent: chain 3 destroy sangen summoning. Does paidra get negated or is it still protected by sangen summoning?
Paidra got negated
I know I might be late on this, but could you do a ruling video on Trap monsters? Because at my locals, someone was trying to tell me that if they Imperm my Stronghold the Hidden fortress, it will return to the spell&trap zone, but Imperm only negates monster effects so why would the card return to the backrow, and I even tested on master duel, but they still don't believe me that a monster effect negate doesn't send a trap monster back
Well, it depends. Was Infinite Impermanence set in the same column as Stronghold? If no, then yes, you are correct, only the monster effect is negated, and it will not return to the backrow. However, if Infinite Impermanence was set in the same column as your Stronghold, the effect to negate spell and trap effects in the column will apply, even if Stronghold is in the monster zone of said column, and thus will have its trap effect negated that allows it to be a monster, thus causing it to return to the backrow.
wasnt 5:10 ruling ment field barrier for that same reason i do believe
Thank you kindly
Chef tom box in the house
Dude legit stalled me for 10 minutes once arguing that soft once per turn cards can be activated again if they switch control
I have a question. In the second exemple of moon of the closed heaven, what hapens if the monster is a tenpai protected with sangen? It allows to link with the tenpai monster, because moon's effect is a continuous like, but what happens if i try with I.P. effect? Not allowed because it's a activated effect?
Moon of closed heaven would not work because you are still activating an effect and applying it to the monster.
Ip works because using an opponent's monster is goddess's summoning procedure
I;P is unique because it's effect activates and resolves. At that resolution you perform the Link Summon. You can if the Opponent tries to I;P if it was activated as CL1, say you try to change the phase, Activate Solemn Judgment on that summon of the Link Using I;P, again only as if it's CL1
I:P's effect is a lot simpler than ya think, it just allows ya to perform a Link summon as Spell Speed 2 so even if the Tenpai Field Spell is face-up on your opponent field, ya can use I:P and only 1 monster your opponent controls to summon Goddess (the Link-5)
So for Mulcharmy Purulia, if you pitch 2, you draw two each normal or special from hand right?
@@brennanmattingly7382 yes, both will apply.
Indeed
So i got thw Quasar ruling right with the Wrong Logic. I assumed it was like OG Stardust and was a seperate effect to activate, also since when is Banishment Immune to "destroy" effects?
it's not that cards in banishment are immune to destruction, it's that Blazar specifically banishes himself then returns as cost
Cards that are in the GY or banished cannot be destroyed, it's always been that way.
I'm about to start abusing cosmic blazer dragon after hearing about this
As a paleo player, imma about to start flipping leanchoilia on that
Question for the first example with sengan: can i ash the monster search and then chain desirae to negate the field spell? If so, would the ash end up negating their monster's effect to search?
Chain ash chain Desirae, yes you can! And yes it will work
If you ash then negate or remove sengan in a higher chain link the tenpai monster will be negated.
So I normal summoned a monster that special summoned a monster from the grave in face down defense. I revealed the monster before setting it face down. place some back row face down and then pass turn. my opponent starts to make a board and enters battle but then attempts to look at my face down monster stating that because it is public knowledge he is able to look at the face down monster that was set from the grave. I was always under the impression that when a monster is set, public knowledge or not, the opponent can no longer obligated to have the card re-revealed. I allowed him to look at it because I have been out of the tournament scene for a while. but was I mistaken and he was allowed to the info or should I stuck to my thoughts.
Cards are public knowledge the turn they have been added to hand, set by card effect, etc. Because your monster was set on your turn then became your opponents turn it is no longer public knowledge.
@@Manifest_Destiny568 okay thank you for that!!! Ill definitely remember this for next time.
Aside from face-down banished cards which only the owner can check on theirs, the GY and banished face-up, everything else is public knowledge on the turn they are revealed/summoned/used
My opponent controls a monster while "There can only be one" is face up on the board" with "Zombie World" and actives
"Big Welcome Labyrinth"
They proceed to SS it & then add it to hand.
Wouldn't the new SS monster be sent to GY before they could return a monster to the hand.
My opponents been arguing since this happens in "Master Duel" it must be right but I'm doubtful of this logic because "Master Duel" seems to have a plethora of incorrect ruling logic
It all happens within the confines of a single effect and nothing gets turned into a Zombie by Zombie World until the conclusion of Big Welcome.
@@Lord_Phoenix95 even when "ZW" is missing from the equation & both are fiend" Master Duel" let's them keep it under "There Can only be one"
You do not apply continuous effects in the middle of the resolution of a chain link. You are probably thinking of some of the weird rulings TCBOO has with cards like Bujinki Ahashima, but those only resolve the way they do under TCBOO because you resolve the effect, then, after the effect has resolved, you'd perform the Xyz summon, but before you can do that, TCBOO kicks in to send one monster to the GY.
If a card does multiple things within the resolution of the chain link, you do them first, and only after the chain link has resolved, do you apply continuous effects.
So what you are saying, if I use runick card during my standby or main phase, I skip battle and main phase 2? I don’t have an option?
You skip your Battle Phase, and are not considered to have entered it. You must enter Battle Phase to conduct Main Phase 2.
That’s exactly correct. Just like the person above me said you have to enter battle phase to get to main phase 2. No battle phase no main phase 2
Just read cards right 🗣️🗣️🗣️
Actually, I have a ruling question too. Let's say I go to battle with my Link 5 Cosmic Tree Irmistil to attack my opponents monster. During damage step, I activate his effect to boost his attack at the cost of my own lifepoints. However, my opponent has "that's ten" on his side of the field. Would "that's ten" activate during the damage step?
Yes it will because it's a trigger effect that doesn't exclude itself from the Damage Step but if that was the 10th counter and your opponent used the effect to set from Deck, they would need to wait until the attack is over because a Continuous Trap card that summons itself as a monster can't be activated during the Damage Step unless it has an effect that deals with direct ATK/DEF manipulation
@@6210classick That's what we figured. Usually continuous S/Ts that manipulate attack and defense don't activate during the damage step so it was a weird situation.
@@6210classick "That's 10!" cannot activate in the Damage Step. Konami just forgot to put the reminder text on there, but the rules for what can and cannot activate in the damage step still apply. Because it is not an effect that negates the activation of a card or effect, an effect that directly alters ATK/DEF (it only indirectly alters it with the continuous effect, but the counter placing effect does not alter stats), an effect that triggers when it itself moves location, or an effect that explicitly says it can activate in the damage step, you cannot activate its effect to place a counter on it.
@@JamesNintendoTurd trigger effects that don't exclude themselves from the Damage Step can be activated there, it's Damage Calculation that is stricter
@@6210classick Unless there's a TCG only rule that says that trigger effects without the reminder text can activate in the Damage Step, no, you cannot activate "That's 10!". There's a clear list of rules as to which effects can and cannot activate in the damage step, which "That's 10!" does not fall under, and the OCG rulings database also directly states that it cannot activate in the damage step.
The only thing that's stricter about Damage Calculation and after compared to before damage calc is that ATK/DEF modifiers cannot be activated anymore once you reach Damage Calculation, unless the ATK/DEF modifying effect explicitly states it can activate during Damage Calculation (or later), otherwise, the rules for what may activate in the damage step is the same throughout the whole thing.
"(except during the Damage Step)" is purely reminder text that exclusively exists in the TCG in the first place. You can of course make the argument that because it lacks the reminder in the TCG, a judge coullld rule that it can activate, but it most certainly is not intended to be activateable in the Damage Step, based on OCG rulings.
Wouldnt you be able to prevent cosmic blazar from coming back if you take it out of the banish pile?
It you return it to grave or put it back in the extra then it can't come back.
yes, that's correct
yes you can, but thats harder to achieve than your standard side deck.
@@MSTTV depends on what you're playing. Water decks have access to prima Donna. That could put it back in the extra pretty easily.
Wait, so Runick cannot go info into main phase II, after using their cards that skip their next battle phase?
@@tuavaresm if the Battle Phase was not entered (including because it was skipped) then Main Phase 2 cannot be conducted.
@@VyaxUltima thanks.
@msttv can i legally activate link 2 goddes if i dont play a link 5 monster in my extra deck ?
Yes. You do not have to have a Link-5 to go into, you don't even have to Link Summon at all. The effect just gives you the option.
Regarding the first ruling, how is it different than, say runick hugin not begin able to protect against dark hole?
Hugin can't banish itself to protect other cards if it would also be destroyed. Its effect isn't constantly applying like Sangen Summoning's is.
Because Hugan is a Destruction replacement effect. Cards marked for destruction cannot use destruction replacement effects if everything is marked, in current deck terms, Muckracker vs Terror Incarnate EP effect. Since TE destroys everything but itself, there is 1 card not marked.for destruction, so destruction replacement of Muckracker can be used to tribute off the Yubel TE instead, triggering it's effect to summon Ultimate Nightmare if you are a Gigachad for actually playing the card
@@SuperSayianWarriorwon't TE miss timing if ya tribute her for Muckraker protection?
To clarify, destruction replacement effects cannot be used if whatever you'd use to replace the destruction is also marked for destruction. If you control Dingirsu for example, you can still use his destruction replacement effect even if everything on the field is marked for destruction, because his replacement is detaching a material, rather than sending/banishing a different card as replacement.
@@6210classick That depends. If the last thing to happen on the chain is a field wipe, as would be the case for Terror Incarnate's End Phase effect, then Muckraker replacing it by tributing Terror Incarnate would cause the last thing to happen be that Terror Incarnate left the field, so you could activate to summon Ultimate Nightmare.
Question: any cool interactions between Moon and Noir into Goddess?
Moon effect won't work on a 5+ material Noir
Just use veiler to negate the battle phase
In fear of sounding like a moron: Runick players still have to declare when they WOULD have entered the battle phase, and thus you proceed to end phase. Since if they just end their turn, the "next battle phase" that runick cards apply to would be on the runick players NEXT turn. Correct?
Yes, if they don't skip the Battle Phase this turn, they'll have to skip the next one
You are correct, but as stated in the video, in-person events in general rule that the Battle Phase skip was implied even if you don't explicitly state it, because otherwise you'd constantly get people calling judges for the express purpose of rule-sharking
@@JamesNintendoTurd I see why judges make the general assumption of battle phase skip. Time saving and prevents trying to untangle a "he said she said" monster. But I'd argue that assuming the runick player skipped their battle phase is much more rule sharking than insisting they declare the existence of a skipped battle phase. As if you do not declare the skipped battle phase, I might try and play more conservatively, trying to chip away at my opponent's resources with unconventional plays under the knowledge that they do not have a battle phase to kill me with next turn. And then they get a judge to say "Yeah, battle phase skip happened, regardless of declaration" when I try to call a judge to reinforce that they should not have a battle phase. Since unlike the Draw, Standby, Main 1 and End Phases, the battle phase is not mandatory. So between, "I am attempting to enforce the restrictions of your cards" and "Well it's just assumed I did it." I think the latter reads more like sharking than the former. My solution to this would be a card or coin or something which both players agree that one side is "Next battle phase will be skipped" and "Next battle phase is not skipped" probably better a card with both written on it. And then, during EP the runick player can flip the card to the "Next battle phase is not skipped" side to indicate that they skipped their battle phase, and if they do not flip it they are left with it until the end of their next turn. Hardly perfect, but much better than "I can just forget the back blasts of my cards because the judges can't be wasting time to decipher whether or not I have a battle phase."
Day 1 of non matching Red foam panel above DMG
d I get you to do a card ruling on mucrackers protection effect
I don't know why I watch these. I always get annoyed at these videos. Can we have the text of the card in question before the explanation? It would be more helpful to let us actually try to figure out the ruling before having it explained so that we can understand where our logic went off track.
Pause the video then look up the card in Nueron?? it's like he showcased a 100 card
@@6210classickthe viewer should not have to pause the video, how ridiculous of you
@@RoyaltonDrummer922 this isn't a live stream that is hours long with the possibility of the vod not getting uploaded, it's a pre-recorded video that ya can watch at any time
Am i tripping? He does put the card text in the bottom left ?
wait you said when you skip your battle phase you go to end phase and no main phase 2. im not crazy to hear that 😵💫 can you explain that again please? 14:35
You skip the phase. You only go to Main Phase 2 after ending the battle phase, which doesn't happen if it's skipped
@topsycho4451 that is the craziset thing i ve ever heard... this literally blows my mind 🤯🤯🤯 woow
You can only enter Main Phase 2 from the battle phase.
The runick ruling is always going to be one of those weird things where its just a Konami said so thing. No where in the rulebook do you have to declare you are attempting to enter battle or end when you are leaving MP1. Why do you need to declare you are attempting to enter battle? Is this also an OCG ruling?
Page 36 and 37 of the rulebook makes it clear you do not have to conduct your battle phase. You're allowed to skip straight to the end phase if you want.
The ruling for runik is that, if you chose to just not enter the battle phase, your turn didn't have a battle phase to skip, so you havent skipped your next battle phase yet.
I think they should just say "skip all the battle phases of your next turn" on the runick cards to avoid all this, but the current wording is logically consistent.
I think the issue is Konami wants u to declare your intentions.
Every turn has a bp but not everyone will take it.
So if u have intentions to enter bp then u or the OPP should make that known.
I will always ask if the runick player is skipping the next bp due to a card effect or choice.
This is not the first time where a Battle Phase skip lingering effect has came up, the Elemental Lords existed before Runick
Bro spoke facts the intire video congrats on 100K🎉🎉
I'm so glad that first ruling works that way. That's why when I'm playing Mikanko in Master Duel and my monsters are protected by their equip spells, and my opponent activates something that destroys all cards on the field, they all get destroyed regardless of the protection and I lose every time
...oh wait-
These ruling clarifications are instrumental, but more importantly, the repeated advise to always call forth a judge when in doubt is indispensable.
Commemorating Ulti-Cannahawk no longer on the F & L list. 🐦 ⚡️
Not only would the Cosmic Blazar come back at the end phase, but he would also still negate raigeki. dark ruler states "negate the effects of all face-up monsters your opponent controls, until the end of this turn,...". Blazar wouldn't be a face-up monster at the resolution of his effect, so his effect would still go through.
According to edo pro that's not how that works, and if someone could elaborate on how this ruling actually works I'd appreciate it
Cosmic Blazar Dragon activated its effect on the field while that effect was negated. Even though Cosmic Blazar Dragon left the field as part of the cost to activate its effect, the effect remains negated because it was negated at activation and there is no superseding clause in the negating effect. (For example, Cosmic Blazar Dragon can negate under Skill Drain, as Skill Drain says to negate monsters’ effects while they remain face-up on the field.)
@@cephalosjr.1835 oh okay that makes sense, thanks!
That's not how it works, Dark Ruler is not Skill Drain/Destiny HERO Plasma, it's Infinite Impermanence/Veiler/Mourner for all your opponent monsters
I hope they ban crimson dragon, it was made for the signers decks but its getting abused by any new synchro deck and I personally dont like it
People when they read rindbrumm. They don't want the card to be as good as it is
I saw your profile and thought this was my comment
@@sun332s7 lol
For real. Everytime my op is like "it does what?!"
@@augusttsutsumi they don't want it to be that good
Fake rules made up by desperate players perfectly describes "ignition priority" from Edison format.
?
Ignition priority isnt fake tf you on about
every made up ruling is always backed by some human element attempting to take bits and pieces of logic and string together an Argument that seems ok at first glance.
@@torchofgenesis i’m trying to understand what you mean by this. are you saying people who try to chain with ignition effects or ignition effect priority in general?
Ignition priority wasn't any faker than Effect Veiler stops working in the End Phase was. They changed the rules because it did work like that,, just like how they changed the wording on Veiler.
I am gonna show them this video and they'll say "Why do I care about some chinese dude?!"