This post has been edited by Val: 27 January 2010 - 01:27 AM
Reason for edit: Fixed the card & topic name
Welcome to ETC Forums!
|
We are a friendly online community for Yugioh, providing information, spoilers, articles, decks, and many other things. What sets us apart from other boards is that our community actually likes to get to know people, and we want you to be a part of it. We hold lots of contests exclusively for our members, and we always give away booster packs and tins as prizes. I hope your visit today shows you what a great community we have, so join today! |
|
| Guest Message by DevFuse | |
#1
Posted 16 November 2009 - 01:12 PM
#2
Posted 16 November 2009 - 04:22 PM
Quote
If you have exactly 4 Fairy-Type monsters in your Graveyard, you can Special Summon this card from your hand. When you do, add 1 Fairy-Type monster from your Graveyard to your hand. Neither player can Special Summon monsters. If this face-up card would be sent from the field to the Graveyard, it returns to the top of the owner's Deck, instead.
If Archlord Kristya is removed from play, it will still be placed at the top of the deck.
Proof:
Suppose we have a crystal beast:
Quote
The crystal beasts have the corresponding ruling:
Quote
So, we shall suppose that Konami means that Archlord Krystia "would be" sent from the field to the graveyard (assuming we're referring to Macro Cosmos or Dimensional fissure being the source of RFG play) and would thus be able to use its effect--it need not reach the graveyard.
Though this is a flimsy proof.
This does not work with Sword of the Deep Seated or Black Ptera, because the card must reach the graveyard (there is no "would be" in the text)--both the return effects of Black Ptera and Sword of the Deep Seated activate and resolve in the graveyard, therefore, if the cards are not sent there, they won't even activate.
#3
Posted 16 November 2009 - 06:17 PM
I suppose Grave Protector will still thwart my definition, but that card's involvement hasn't exactly been consistent over the years anyway.

work by Johnny :)
Trade List / Refs
Mavs, on 28 January 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:
#4
Posted 17 November 2009 - 03:07 PM
The proof was flimsy because of the assumption that being "destroyed" and "would be sent to the graveyard" meant the same thing, or were similar enough to have the same ruling precedent.
#5
Posted 17 November 2009 - 07:20 PM
I get what you're saying about the Macro Cosmos & Dimensional Fissure involvement being strange, but sometimes we've gotta do our best to justify things, regardless of whether or not we fully agree with it or not.

work by Johnny :)
Trade List / Refs
Mavs, on 28 January 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:
#6
Posted 18 November 2009 - 12:09 PM
That ruling may exist for the Crystal Beasts, but if a card effect destroys AND removes (i.e.: Bottomless Trap Hole) then it takes the option away and the monster cannot be placed in the Spell/Trap Zone. It's outlined in the OCG's FAQ for Force of the Breaker: http://dmcomet.net/fotb_faq.txt
#7
Posted 18 November 2009 - 04:16 PM
Quote
How is that justified? Did Netrep lie to me?
#8
Posted 18 November 2009 - 11:57 PM
On the other hand, Bottomless Trap Hole aims to destroy & remove the monster/s from play with its own effect, without the intended destination ever being the Graveyard.

work by Johnny :)
Trade List / Refs
Mavs, on 28 January 2011 - 04:39 PM, said:
#9
Posted 20 November 2009 - 12:52 AM

Help

Sign In »
Register Now!













