You Gotta Lay That Dasher On 'Em

[Jonnyfive]

Thanks for the advice Dark Panther, but I think I'm just going to make you kill yourself.

Speaking of Dark Panther..and suicidal with him. His effect says that it last until the end of the turn, but whenever I try to suicide a Tomato or a Newdoria in tournament with him, they always ask for a ruling and I get overruled...they say that once it hits the graveyard his effect resolves...I don't understand this..because for one, it says UNTIL THE END OF THE TURN...secondly, even if it did resolve in the graveyard, Newdoria's and Tomato's effects ALSO resolve in the graveyard; being that the effects resolve at the same time and I should still be able to use them.

Please discuss why you think this ruling is complete BS...or explain it in a way that doesn't contradict the card or the rules of the game.

[-Griffin]

Ruling makes perfect sense. Newdoria/Tomato resolve in the Graveyard, Dark Panther can only copy effects while on the field, when in the Graveyard it has no effect, so nothing from it.

[Rose]

There is a reason why there is a Q&A thread.

[Bringerofcake]

Please discuss why you think this a ruling is complete BS...or explain it in a way that doesn't contradict the card or the rules of the game.

 

Monsters with 0 ATK cannot destroy other 0 ATK monsters by battle.

 

I could understand it in the old days with "I deal X damage to your monster' date=' the excess goes to your opponent," but with the Master Rules simplifying that system to "I have more ATK, I win", there is no mention of that ruling (apart of course from when my Naga can't kill a monster that she dropped to 0 with her own effect). I searched the rulebook. Nothing. Either the OCG has it tucked away somewhere in THEIR rules, or Konami's effing with us. Either way, I [i']reeeeally[/i] hate that rule.

[Cavv10]

I came in expecting:

 

 

 

 

I was dissapointed.

 

Also, Q&A Thread.

[Dr. Cakey]

Please discuss why you think this a ruling is complete BS...or explain it in a way that doesn't contradict the card or the rules of the game.

 

Monsters with 0 ATK cannot destroy other 0 ATK monsters by battle.

 

I could understand it in the old days with "I deal X damage to your monster' date=' the excess goes to your opponent," but with the Master Rules simplifying that system to "I have more ATK, I win", there is no mention of that ruling (apart of course from when my Naga can't kill a monster that she dropped to 0 with her own effect). I searched the rulebook. Nothing. Either the OCG has it tucked away somewhere in THEIR rules, or Konami's effing with us. Either way, I [i']reeeeally[/i] hate that rule.

 

Oh hey, I hate that rule, too. I thought it was: "If both monsters have the same ATK, both monsters are destroyed. Neither player takes any damage."

 

P.S. Awesome people direct attack with Cyber Valley.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Please discuss why you think this a ruling is complete BS...or explain it in a way that doesn't contradict the card or the rules of the game.

 

Monsters with 0 ATK cannot destroy other 0 ATK monsters by battle.

 

I could understand it in the old days with "I deal X damage to your monster' date=' the excess goes to your opponent," but with the Master Rules simplifying that system to "I have more ATK, I win", there is no mention of that ruling (apart of course from when my Naga can't kill a monster that she dropped to 0 with her own effect). I searched the rulebook. Nothing. Either the OCG has it tucked away somewhere in THEIR rules, or Konami's effing with us. Either way, I [i']reeeeally[/i] hate that rule.

 

Oh hey, I hate that rule, too. I thought it was: "If both monsters have the same ATK, both monsters are destroyed. Neither player takes any damage."

 

P.S. Awesome people direct attack with Cyber Valley.

I chain Magic Cylinder.

[Rose]

Please discuss why you think this a ruling is complete BS...or explain it in a way that doesn't contradict the card or the rules of the game.

 

Monsters with 0 ATK cannot destroy other 0 ATK monsters by battle.

 

I could understand it in the old days with "I deal X damage to your monster' date=' the excess goes to your opponent," but with the Master Rules simplifying that system to "I have more ATK, I win", there is no mention of that ruling (apart of course from when my Naga can't kill a monster that she dropped to 0 with her own effect). I searched the rulebook. Nothing. Either the OCG has it tucked away somewhere in THEIR rules, or Konami's effing with us. Either way, I [i']reeeeally[/i] hate that rule.

 

Oh hey, I hate that rule, too. I thought it was: "If both monsters have the same ATK, both monsters are destroyed. Neither player takes any damage."

 

P.S. Awesome people direct attack with Cyber Valley.

I chain Magic Cylinder.

 

I activate Trap Jammer.

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Please discuss why you think this a ruling is complete BS...or explain it in a way that doesn't contradict the card or the rules of the game.

 

Monsters with 0 ATK cannot destroy other 0 ATK monsters by battle.

 

I could understand it in the old days with "I deal X damage to your monster' date=' the excess goes to your opponent," but with the Master Rules simplifying that system to "I have more ATK, I win", there is no mention of that ruling (apart of course from when my Naga can't kill a monster that she dropped to 0 with her own effect). I searched the rulebook. Nothing. Either the OCG has it tucked away somewhere in THEIR rules, or Konami's effing with us. Either way, I [i']reeeeally[/i] hate that rule.

 

Oh hey, I hate that rule, too. I thought it was: "If both monsters have the same ATK, both monsters are destroyed. Neither player takes any damage."

 

P.S. Awesome people direct attack with Cyber Valley.

I chain Magic Cylinder.

 

I activate Trap Jammer.

Scoop.

[darkwolf777]

Please discuss why you think this a ruling is complete BS...or explain it in a way that doesn't contradict the card or the rules of the game.

 

Monsters with 0 ATK cannot destroy other 0 ATK monsters by battle.

 

I could understand it in the old days with "I deal X damage to your monster' date=' the excess goes to your opponent," but with the Master Rules simplifying that system to "I have more ATK, I win", there is no mention of that ruling (apart of course from when my Naga can't kill a monster that she dropped to 0 with her own effect). I searched the rulebook. Nothing. Either the OCG has it tucked away somewhere in THEIR rules, or Konami's effing with us. Either way, I [i']reeeeally[/i] hate that rule.

 

Oh hey, I hate that rule, too. I thought it was: "If both monsters have the same ATK, both monsters are destroyed. Neither player takes any damage."

 

P.S. Awesome people direct attack with Cyber Valley.

 

No, don't. I did that as a joke once with 3 "Spirit of the Breeze" in my very old Fire Princess deck and got Mirror Forced. Never again :D

 

Either way, even though 0 ATK vs 0 ATK would lead you to think they'd kill each other, a monster with 0 ATK is incapable of inflicting battle damage. If it cannot inflict battle damage to a player, then it very well cannot inflict battle damage to a monster. Its basically just two monsters rubbing against each other, and that's their battle. That's how I understand it anyway.

[Bringerofcake]

Please discuss why you think this a ruling is complete BS...or explain it in a way that doesn't contradict the card or the rules of the game.

 

Monsters with 0 ATK cannot destroy other 0 ATK monsters by battle.

 

I could understand it in the old days with "I deal X damage to your monster' date=' the excess goes to your opponent," but with the Master Rules simplifying that system to "I have more ATK, I win", there is no mention of that ruling (apart of course from when my Naga can't kill a monster that she dropped to 0 with her own effect). I searched the rulebook. Nothing. Either the OCG has it tucked away somewhere in THEIR rules, or Konami's effing with us. Either way, I [i']reeeeally[/i] hate that rule.

 

Oh hey, I hate that rule, too. I thought it was: "If both monsters have the same ATK, both monsters are destroyed. Neither player takes any damage."

 

P.S. Awesome people direct attack with Cyber Valley.

 

No, don't. I did that as a joke once with 3 "Spirit of the Breeze" in my very old Fire Princess deck and got Mirror Forced. Never again :D

 

Either way, even though 0 ATK vs 0 ATK would lead you to think they'd kill each other, a monster with 0 ATK is incapable of inflicting battle damage. If it cannot inflict battle damage to a player, then it very well cannot inflict battle damage to a monster. Its basically just two monsters rubbing against each other, and that's their battle. That's how I understand it anyway.

 

See, in the old rules that's acceptable. They never mentioned that when they redrew the rules. I believe the good doctor said it best:

I thought it was: "If both monsters have the same ATK' date=' both monsters are destroyed. Neither player takes any damage."

[/quote']

[darkwolf777]

I still have he original 1.0 and 2.0 handbooks and neither explain that 0 ATK vs 0 ATK = No monsters are destroyed.

 

You would think something like this would get added into the latest rulebooks at least as this would be something that's kinda fundamental to the game (well, an issue with Game Mechanics anyway, which should all be explained in the handbooks).

[evilfusion]

Wait, that's a real rule?! I thought the 0 vs 0 thing was a weird issue in the WC games because I dont have a clue where that comes in when we mention actual written rules. It makes sense because of the concept of 0, but yet...it's just so weird that two monsters with the same ATK wont die if they battle.

 

Where is this rule referenced? Anywhere?

[Jonnyfive]

Ruling makes perfect sense. Newdoria/Tomato resolve in the Graveyard' date=' Dark Panther can only copy effects while on the field, when in the Graveyard it has no effect, so nothing from it.

[/quote']

Dark Panther states that the effect lasts until the end of the turn, not while it is face up on the field. If it were meant to be while its face up on the field...it should say it, just like all the other cards that do.

[Umbra]

Ruling makes perfect sense. Newdoria/Tomato resolve in the Graveyard' date=' Dark Panther can only copy effects while on the field, when in the Graveyard it has no effect, so nothing from it.

[/quote']

Dark Panther states that the effect lasts until the end of the turn, not while it is face up on the field. If it were meant to be while its face up on the field...it should say it, just like all the other cards that do.

 

 

It helps if you read the whole card, you know.

[darkwolf777]

Wait' date=' that's a real rule?! I thought the 0 vs 0 thing was a weird issue in the WC games because I dont have a clue where that comes in when we mention actual written rules. It makes sense because of the concept of 0, but yet...it's just so weird that two monsters with the same ATK wont die if they battle.

 

Where is this rule referenced? Anywhere?

[/quote']

 

Even if two things battle, if they can't hurt each other with hugs and snuggles, how do you expect one to kill the other?

 

I emailed konami on this one a while back, mainly to end a silly argument some people were having, and this was the response I got:

 

"A monster with 0 ATK cannot destroy anything by battle".

 

Its never referenced in any rulebooks. It just is.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Ruling makes perfect sense. Newdoria/Tomato resolve in the Graveyard' date=' Dark Panther can only copy effects while on the field, when in the Graveyard it has no effect, so nothing from it.

[/quote']

Dark Panther states that the effect lasts until the end of the turn, not while it is face up on the field. If it were meant to be while its face up on the field...it should say it, just like all the other cards that do.

 

Um, it does... it says "while you control this FACE UP card", you get the effect... if it's in the grave, that does not apply.

[Dr. Cakey]

Ruling makes perfect sense. Newdoria/Tomato resolve in the Graveyard' date=' Dark Panther can only copy effects while on the field, when in the Graveyard it has no effect, so nothing from it.

[/quote']

Dark Panther states that the effect lasts until the end of the turn, not while it is face up on the field. If it were meant to be while its face up on the field...it should say it, just like all the other cards that do.

 

Um, it does... it says "while you control this FACE UP card", you get the effect... if it's in the grave, that does not apply.

 

Also, it doesn't need to say that. Whenever a card changes location (or is flipped face-down), its effects etc. reset. This is the principle behind Skill Drain decks, especially Skill Drain/Plants. If I have i.e. Lonefire Blossom on the field while Skill Drain is out, its effect is negated. I can still activate the effect, though. If I do and Tribute it itself, then the effect resolves in the Graveyard and I spam Tytannial. The effect doesn't remain negated when the card is moved.

 

The only exceptions to this rule are battle position changes and Semi-Nomi monsters. If you change the battle position of a monster and then flip it facedown i.e. with Book of Moon, you cannot change the position again. Semi-Nomi monsters (like Synchros) "know" if they have been properly summoned before being sent to the Graveyard/removed from play. If the monster is returned to the hand/Deck/etc. this does reset, though.

 

So there, that's an overly-long answer to the total confusion surrounding effects and stuff of this kind.

[Bringerofcake]

Wait' date=' that's a real rule?! I thought the 0 vs 0 thing was a weird issue in the WC games because I dont have a clue where that comes in when we mention actual written rules. It makes sense because of the concept of 0, but yet...it's just so weird that two monsters with the same ATK wont die if they battle.

 

Where is this rule referenced? Anywhere?

[/quote']

 

Even if two things battle, if they can't hurt each other with hugs and snuggles, how do you expect one to kill the other?

 

I emailed konami on this one a while back, mainly to end a silly argument some people were having, and this was the response I got:

 

"A monster with 0 ATK cannot destroy anything by battle".

 

Its never referenced in any rulebooks. It just is.

 

Then how are we supposed to know that off the bat? I admit it may not have been much of a problem before, but with the advent of Reptilliane, having monsters with 0 ATK is the strategy of the deck. Surely they could at least say on the website?

[Dr. Cakey]

Wait' date=' that's a real rule?! I thought the 0 vs 0 thing was a weird issue in the WC games because I dont have a clue where that comes in when we mention actual written rules. It makes sense because of the concept of 0, but yet...it's just so weird that two monsters with the same ATK wont die if they battle.

 

Where is this rule referenced? Anywhere?

[/quote']

 

Even if two things battle, if they can't hurt each other with hugs and snuggles, how do you expect one to kill the other?

 

I emailed konami on this one a while back, mainly to end a silly argument some people were having, and this was the response I got:

 

"A monster with 0 ATK cannot destroy anything by battle".

 

Its never referenced in any rulebooks. It just is.

 

Then how are we supposed to know that off the bat? I admit it may not have been much of a problem before, but with the advent of Reptilliane, having monsters with 0 ATK is the strategy of the deck. Surely they could at least say on the website?

 

It's the same thing as costs vs. effects. vs. conditions. Konami is keeping it a secret to the uninitiated. You must first pass through the Rings of Volcanic Fire to learn these secrets. Or ask somebody.

[Fraz]

There is a reason why there is a Q&A thread.

 

Maybe if it was renamed something useful like "Yugioh TCG Rulings Thread" people wouldn't ignore it.

 

I don't see why people shouldn't be able to ask rulings questions in its own thread. Having one thread for all rulings can lead to miscommunication when multiple questions are asked and rulings discussed. Also its not like the TCG section as a whole is flooded with active threads so a few rulings disputes doesn't hurt.

[Jonnyfive]

Ruling makes perfect sense. Newdoria/Tomato resolve in the Graveyard' date=' Dark Panther can only copy effects while on the field, when in the Graveyard it has no effect, so nothing from it.

[/quote']

Dark Panther states that the effect lasts until the end of the turn, not while it is face up on the field. If it were meant to be while its face up on the field...it should say it, just like all the other cards that do.

 

Um, it does... it says "while you control this FACE UP card", you get the effect... if it's in the grave, that does not apply.

 

but it states "until the end of the turn" the turn doesn't end when its in the graveyard..unless there is some sort of a neko mane king effect chained to that destroys it.

I really don't understand why the card would say that and the effect not be meant to last the whole turn.

[-Griffin]

Ruling makes perfect sense. Newdoria/Tomato resolve in the Graveyard' date=' Dark Panther can only copy effects while on the field, when in the Graveyard it has no effect, so nothing from it.

[/quote']

Dark Panther states that the effect lasts until the end of the turn, not while it is face up on the field. If it were meant to be while its face up on the field...it should say it, just like all the other cards that do.

 

Um, it does... it says "while you control this FACE UP card", you get the effect... if it's in the grave, that does not apply.

 

but it states "until the end of the turn" the turn doesn't end when its in the graveyard..unless there is some sort of a neko mane king effect chained to that destroys it.

I really don't understand why the card would say that and the effect not be meant to last the whole turn.

 

End of the turn means "Until the end of the turn, UNLESS the effect ends for another reason." Being removed from the field is 'another reason', and will cause it to stop working.

[Umbra]

Ruling makes perfect sense. Newdoria/Tomato resolve in the Graveyard' date=' Dark Panther can only copy effects while on the field, when in the Graveyard it has no effect, so nothing from it.

[/quote']

Dark Panther states that the effect lasts until the end of the turn, not while it is face up on the field. If it were meant to be while its face up on the field...it should say it, just like all the other cards that do.

 

Um, it does... it says "while you control this FACE UP card", you get the effect... if it's in the grave, that does not apply.

 

but it states "until the end of the turn" the turn doesn't end when its in the graveyard..unless there is some sort of a neko mane king effect chained to that destroys it.

I really don't understand why the card would say that and the effect not be meant to last the whole turn.

 

It has three conditions, as the card painfully obviously states:

• You need to control the card.

• It has to be face-up on the field.

• It only lasts until the End Phase of your turn.

 

While ALL THREE of these conditions are fulfilled, the effect works. No more, no less.

[Sephiroth_The_Legend]

Ruling makes perfect sense. Newdoria/Tomato resolve in the Graveyard' date=' Dark Panther can only copy effects while on the field, when in the Graveyard it has no effect, so nothing from it.

[/quote']

Dark Panther states that the effect lasts until the end of the turn, not while it is face up on the field. If it were meant to be while its face up on the field...it should say it, just like all the other cards that do.

 

Um, it does... it says "while you control this FACE UP card", you get the effect... if it's in the grave, that does not apply.

 

but it states "until the end of the turn" the turn doesn't end when its in the graveyard..unless there is some sort of a neko mane king effect chained to that destroys it.

I really don't understand why the card would say that and the effect not be meant to last the whole turn.

 

It says while it remains "on the field"

 

as its in the Graveyard, the effect is null and void.