Dark Neos

Can Dark Neos target himself?

What do you think and why?

Is there an official source on this?

Yes, it will negate itself to return to extra deck if there isn't any neo space active

kangtuji wrote:Yes, it will negate itself to return to extra deck if there isn't any neo space active

I think so too, but 1 admin and 1 head admin say there is a loop caused and u can't target itself. Another admin agrees with me though. Of course, we are both familiar with the logic behind the loop.

That's y I need not only ur opinions and explanations, but sources as well. Thank you for your input.

I don't think Dark Neos can target itself, but I'm not sure.

BlackwingRa wrote:I don't think Dark Neos can target itself, but I'm not sure.

Thank you for your input. Can you please also explain the thoughts that led you to this conclusion? Even if you're not sure, it's fine.
In addition, did you think of this yourself, or is there any source you found this info?

It indeed causes an infinite loop:
Dark Neos negates itself.
Because he negates himself, he negates his negation effect, which will re-activate his effect. Infinite loops on purpose are illegal, so you cannot do this.
http://www.pojo.biz/board/archive/index.php/t-541947.html

Hope that helps!

Mmhm... I was used Dark Neos effect in videogame on itself

Probably a glitch then, but its at end phase the effect returned to deck is negated.

Have you looked at my link? :/
It's really a glitch in the game, automatic systems have many of those.

The video game has many glitch, so if not necessary, please don't use it to test rulings.

1) Yes I do look at the link
2) Its not like I was testing it on vidya, It was experience. Hence that what I said, glitch

yes it will cause a loop:

You Try To Negate an Effect that negates however they are the same effect and as such would cause an infinite loop of negation, doing so is considered Illegal

I appreciate all ur inputs, but who marked this thread as solved and y?

3E-hero neos wrote:It indeed causes an infinite loop:
Dark Neos negates itself.
Because he negates himself, he negates his negation effect, which will re-activate his effect. Infinite loops on purpose are illegal, so you cannot do this.
http://www.pojo.biz/board/archive/index.php/t-541947.html

Hope that helps!

I had found it myself, but it isn't an official source, so I have to keep asking for thoughts and sources.
I completely disagree with the logic, but my own thoughts will have to wait for later.
I can tell u now though, that 1 admin agrees with me, while another admin and a head admin also are pro loop. That's y I want as many ppl giving their opinions with as many sources as possible. When I find an official source, this issue will be solved(but still up for much discussion of course(that's when I'll give my own thoughts on this)).

kangtuji wrote:Mmhm... I was used Dark Neos effect in videogame on itself

Probably a glitch then, but its at end phase the effect returned to deck is negated.

I c many ppl are saying this is a glitch. Even if this video game has many glitches though(idk if it has, just going on what BlackwingRa said), this doesn't prove this is one of them.

Are there any games where dark neos cannot target himself? What about yugi oh online? Is that a valid source and what happens there?

Also I c BlackwingRa and Badass_Bunny don't state their sources, even if they are your own thoughts, plz say that.

there is no need for a source for that specific situation, all you need to know is:

Badass_Bunny wrote:doing so is considered Illegal

and that is a general rule of the game.

If you need a source for that... well, I presume it is somewhere in the rulebook or something like that, don't know. The only sure thing here is, that it is illegal.

If you search long enough you also might find some situations described in rulings, such as amplifier:

You cannot activate a card that would cause an infinite loop because its effect cannot resolve completely. Example #1: You activate "Snatch Steal" targeting your opponent's "Jinzo". You then equip "Jinzo" with "Amplifier". You cannot activate "Imperial Order" because it cannot resolve completely (it would negate "Snatch Steal", returning "Jinzo" to your opponent, which would negate "Imperial Order" so "Snatch Steal" would re-activate). If you activate "Imperial Order" by mistake in such a situation, flip it face-down again. Example #2: you control "Jinzo" equipped with "Amplifier" and "Skill Drain". Your opponent cannot activate "Royal Decree".

1) I marked the thread as solved because the answer to the issue was already posted. What 3E-hero neos said is totally correct for the reasons dest quotes.
2) YGO rules do not depend on democracy. A correct ruling is not up to discussion. Completely disagreeing with the logic of a ruling doesn't change a thing.
3) Games tend to be flawed regarding complex rulings. They are not a reliable source of rulings.

TamA wrote:1) I marked the thread as solved because the answer to the issue was already posted. What 3E-hero neos said is totally correct for the reasons dest quotes.

Are u referring to these forums? Cause I searched them and found nothing. Do u mean pojo(because if I'm not mistaken, no official source was posted there)? If not, can u send me a link to where u say it has been posted?

2) YGO rules do not depend on democracy.

One could say that everything depends on democracy, cause private companies like konami are created and function under a democratic climate(so rulings are (very)indirectly decided by public opinion). But I don't want to get philosophical. I know u mean rulings are not directly decided by public opinion, or are even up for debate.

This is exactly the reason y I want to find an official source. All I've heard so far are thoughts and mentions to the existence of an official ruling. Having heard different things from different admins, u understand y I want to find the official source of the ruling I disagree with. An official source has not yet been posted on this thread, thus I thought it wasn't solved, unless it has and I missed it.

Of course, I don't expect to change the ruling...

A correct ruling is not up to discussion. Completely disagreeing with the logic of a ruling doesn't change a thing.

Reading this part makes me sad

Everything is up for discussion. Players can talk about rulings all they want. That way they learn how to better play the game. Officials also discuss rulings I guess, otherwise there wouldn't be a previously official rulings section in wiki.Every ruling is correct until it isn't anymore.

So, completely disagreeing does change things. Respecting the rules has nothing to do with keeping an open mind. If we all accepted everything, nothing would change. In fact, the more power u have over rulings, the more responsibility u have not just accepting everything and standing up for what u believe in.

Enough with my philosophical rant though. I'm not here about changing things(ppl affecting rulings should), all I want is to talk about this. But 1st, I need to find an official source and understand it(and that is y and only y this thread exists).

After I find that source, I would appreciate if u could direct me into a more proper subforum I can discuss this with others. This was the only 1 I could find for this. If here is fine, I would prefer to make a separate thread for the discussion of the ruling, could I?

3) Games tend to be flawed regarding complex rulings. They are not a reliable source of rulings.

Hm, isn't there a game where every or at least most rulings are correct? Like yugioh online, don't ppl pay konami for that?

It would be interesting to see what happens in a game where most rulings are correct.

Not every card has rulings, because most cards can be interpreted and see what happens if a situation arose. The only official site there is Konami>Yugioh-card>strategy site.

If they don't have what you're looking for, well then anything else u find on other sites isnt "official" but you can easily see the logic of it. It's the logic that counts.

Thousands of players use pojo, wikia, tcgplayer, kc, duelingnetwork, forums and others to check with others and ask them the logic for it. They know it's not official, yet they still use. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundred thousands. Why do they still use it? Cause it's resourceful, helpful, and gets the job done.

No matter how much u dislike it, arguing against it won't change it. Dark Neos will cause an infinite loop because if it negates itself, that means the ability to negate is gone, so Dark Neos negation ability is back again,but then it negates itself again, and again and again.Since infinite loops are illegal, you cannot do this.

TheBlackRoseGuy wrote:Not every card has rulings, because most cards can be interpreted and see what happens if a situation arose. The only official site there is Konami>Yugioh-card>strategy site.

I failed to find that 1, plz provide with an exact link. But from ur post, I'm guessing dark neos isn't in there.

If they don't have what you're looking for, well then anything else u find on other sites isnt "official" but you can easily see the logic of it. It's the logic that counts.

Thousands of players use pojo, wikia, tcgplayer, kc, duelingnetwork, forums and others to check with others and ask them the logic for it. They know it's not official, yet they still use. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundred thousands. Why do they still use it? Cause it's resourceful, helpful, and gets the job done.

Apparently, an admin disagrees with u. Read number 2) of his post(in this thread).

I also disagree with u, not that the logic doesn't count, but players can't decide rulings. Thus, a source like pojo isn't official. Of course, I welcome any source and thoughts. It's just that my aim is to find an official 1. The root of this ruling, on whose authority it has been decided.

No matter how much u dislike it, arguing against it won't change it.

I haven't even began arguing against it...I want to do that after I find the source of this ruling. So far, I have the impression it has been decided on a post at pojo(specifically, a pojo member explained the logic 1st and then every1 agreed with him, so he is the source so far) and the majority agreed with the logic explained there. Is my impression correct, or has the ruling been decided somehow else? This is what this thread is all about. I am thinking of making a different 1 on discussing the ruling.

Like I already said in my previous post:

a)I just want to argue(eventually), my reasons are my own. I never said I expect to change the ruling(even if I think it should). I said just the opposite, in fact.

b)Generally, thinking like that is pessimistic and wrong. The more u affect rulings the more it is ur responsibility to argue against those u deem wrong.

According to u, the rulings that have no official source are decided by the discussion of their logic. That is all the more reason for every1 to discuss the logic, because any1s comment could change a ruling(again, according to u).


Thank u all for ur input in this. Keep it coming too, cause I don't consider this thread solved.
That's y I am greatly interested in TamA or another admin answering me on on my questions on TamA's 1) point.

4) Not satisfied? Send the big guys a mail: Us-judgesupport@konami.com

TamA wrote:4) Not satisfied?

With what exactly? I don't even know what the ruling is. U are an admin telling me dark neos can't target himself and another admin has said to me he can...

What is the source of the ruling, who decided on it?

What is the thread u mention the solution has been posted?

I appreciate the mail u gave me, but reading my posts and answering my questions would help more. I'm really only repeating myself in my last 2 posts and I get no answers. This is not a thread about me being satisfied with the ruling or not(I'll make a separate thread on that). This is a thread searching for as many sources and thoughts on the matter as possible.

yes because it said any monster

dest wrote:there is no need for a source for that specific situation, all you need to know is:

Badass_Bunny wrote:doing so is considered Illegal

and that is a general rule of the game.

Of course, if dark neos targeting himself causes an infinite loop, of the kind u can't stop when u choose, then u can't target himself.
I know that every choice which causes a loop like that is illegal.

The question is, does it cause an infinite loop or not? That's the ruling I am referring to. I have my own and others' reasons to think it doesn't and I haven't yet seen any valid source on that.

Of course, I am still waiting to hear what the sources of cybrbot, BlackwingRa and Badass_Bunny. I think what they say are their own thoughts, but even so I would appreciate if they stated it, so as to be sure we're not missing anything.

I told you on DN and explained why it causes an infinite loop, my source is whole internet and knowledge of game, it's one of those things that are explained within the game rules if you know where to look.

Jesus Christ Fine, ill go to the OFFICIAL Judges Forum and ask there


THERE WORD IS AS GOOD AS AN OFFICIAL KONAMI RULING

Badass_Bunny wrote:I told you on DN and explained why it causes an infinite loop, my source is whole internet and knowledge of game, it's one of those things that are explained within the game rules if you know where to look.

Thank u for sating ur source.

What u said are exactly my sentiments as well, I mean really, word by word . So unless S.I. adds a knowledge per brain unit, we can't come to a valid conclusion with just that .

Btw, who are u on DN? Zaraki?

Sexy Candy Panda wrote:Jesus Christ Fine, ill go to the OFFICIAL Judges Forum and ask there


THERE WORD IS AS GOOD AS AN OFFICIAL KONAMI RULING

Wow, very cool thank u, I didn't know that!! It would be great if u could also provide with a link to that thread.

TamA wrote:4) Not satisfied? Send the big guys a mail: Us-judgesupport@konami.com

...
The email you gave seems a little off.
I thought it's us-ygorules@konami.com
:S

it don't start no infinite loop least that what they told me


dark neos targets himself to negate, all good

you can, and btw i ain gonna screenshot that cuz i don't wanna give out my name in Facebook

Sexy Candy Panda wrote:it don't start no infinite loop least that what they told me


dark neos targets himself to negate, all good

you can, and btw i ain gonna screenshot that cuz i don't wanna give out my name in Facebook

EDIT: A DN admin said that we might want to w8 for some1 more experienced than that group to decide on the matter.

the hell? who said i was not trusted with rulings? i never give fake rulings

Sexy Candy Panda wrote:the hell? who said i was not trusted with rulings? i never give fake rulings

Sry, he misunderstood. I edited my post. He said that he has been a member of that judge group and that with such a complex ruling we might want some more experienced ppl to answer it.

It is, however, a very good source. With judges having different opinions about this, it is now confirmed that this matter is not only not solved, but needs to be reviewed thoroughly.

yeah it's an infinite loop but just in case it should wait more time

I told him not to trust you after he told me you got your info from Official judge forum, which is currently under maintenance, after I saw where you posted it I corrected myself. But You just can't negate his eff with his own eff. Cause whenever you would try to use it, the effect that would negate Dark Neos Eff would be Negated.

i know, someone asnwerd that in that group thank you for repeating copy pasta

That someone would have been me...

Sry for that mess ppl xD All's good now I guess.

So if I'm not mistaken where we stand now is waiting for more experienced ppl to take a look at this, right?

I think this thread needs to be unmarked as solved then :/

Elemental Hero Dark Neos can target itself for its effect.

Elemental Hero Dark Neos' effect is not Continuous. It is an Ignition Effect that has resolved successfully.

Whether Elemental Hero Neos is negated after the fact, his negation effect will still apply. Say I activated Evil Neos and it resolved successfully on another monster on the field. Say during my next Main Phase, my opponent drew an Effect Veiler during their turn and want to negate my Evil Neos. Doing so will not stop its negation that's being applied to the other monster. To stop the negation, the monster must be removed from the field (or otherwise flipped face-down).

Therefore, If it targets Evil Neos itself, It will negate its own effects until it itself is removed from the field. There is no loop. Its effect that returns it to the Extra Deck activates during the End Phase, but will be negated. It will stay on the field.

So... vidya game is correct

Unless there is a glitch

Dark Neos cannot target himself

kangtuji wrote:So... vidya game is correct

Unless there is a glitch

So, back to 0. Haha, I love how these sentences cancel each other out

Thanks darkwolf, for ur input in this.


EDIT:

Sexy Candy Panda wrote:Dark Neos cannot target himself

Ah, so maybe not back to 0 after all. Does this mean we have updates from the judge group Panda?

Thank u again btw, for spending so much time and energy on this matter!

yeah got answered, there was a rule saying dark neos cannot target itself,

sadly i cannot find this but many people agreed with the person that aswered

Sexy Candy Panda wrote:yeah got answered, there was a rule saying dark neos cannot target itself,

sadly i cannot find this but many people agreed with the person that aswered

Hm, I found this:
http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Elemental_Hero_Dark_Neos

If I understand correctly, there is a translated japanese q and a, at the bottom.
It indicates he can target himself...




I feel the time of an absolute decision has come. The time for this thread to be solved draws near, it seems. Thus, I can finally start sharing my own thoughts.

Initially I wanted to make a separate thread about this, but seeing how many opinions are on this 1 already, I feel like it would be multi-threading.

Whatever the ruling is, I accept it as a rule, but I still think no loop is created.

Many ppl share the thoughts of 3E-hero neos:

Because he negates himself, he negates his negation effect, which will re-activate his effect. Infinite loops on purpose are illegal, so you cannot do this.

I believe it is wrong, right at the start of the supposed loop. Neos does not negate his negation effect that is already resolving, imo. Only the potential to activate the effect again.
Bellow is a link to a pic of some text I wrote, explaining y I think so:
https://2img.net/h/oi53.tinypic.com/26392tu.png

I'm posting a link to avoid huge posts(seeing as I already write pretty big ones). If any1 wants to, I can cpy/paste the text here.

My reasoning is very similar to darkwolf777's. Any and all who want to discuss on this are welcome, of course.

Zafos wrote:Can Dark Neos target himself?

What do you think and why?

Is there an official source on this?

Well, it can target any 1 monster on the field, so I believe that includes itself.

Hi, I'm fluent in Japanese, and I've been to the site you posted.

The site does say that, yes, it can target itself and no, it will not return to the deck at the end of the turn. It also has a line earlier in the page indicating that, since the ruling on the card was under debate for a while, in some video games it was made so that it could not target itself. This statement leads me to believe that there were also some games where it COULD target itself, so maybe Badass_Bunny's game wasn't glitched after all.

In the end, though, this is just the Japanese wiki, not an official source. It's also OCG, and I'm not sure OCG and TCG always agreed on rulings.

storyteller wrote:In the end, though, this is just the Japanese wiki, not an official source. It's also OCG, and I'm not sure OCG and TCG always agreed on rulings.

Wow, thx for chipping in! How many years did it take u to learn to speak japanese fluently btw? Or are u from Japan or sth?

I was under the impression this was a q and a from some official source or sth when I read this.

Be sure that TCG and OCG disagree on some cases. In the case of simultaneous effects going on chain for example, TCG rules that what happens 1st so to speak is going as chain link 1, while OCG has an order section.

My brother has told me that whenever TCG doesn't cover an area OCG rulings do, OCG is usually followed.
Well, I guess since the judges group deliberated on it they made a TCG ruling, so my link doesn't matter anyway, like u said.

I simply cannot fathom how such a case has so little support. Dark neos targeting himself is sth that immediately comes to mind when reading that card xD
Isn't there some1 judges can address to solve stuff like that? Y does this game have so little official support?

Anyways...

NeostheAncientOne wrote:
Well, it can target any 1 monster on the field, so I believe that includes itself.

Thank u for ur thoughts.

I am afraid this isn't enough of a justification. For example, penguin soldier can't target itself, even though the card doesn't specify so.

Japanese is my second language and, as far as I'm concerned, might as well be my first language. It's hard to say whether my Chinese is better or my Japanese is better. It saddens me somewhat to say that, in the end, English is my best language.

I don't know who's answering that wiki. Considering that it can be edited by the public like most other wiki... I don't think I'd believe that the one who wrote it was an actual official.

As for the ruling, considering how much trouble and discrepancies we've found on the quest to the right ruling, chances are judges at tournaments aren't even guaranteed to rule correctly on this matter. It could go either way, depending on the judge. What I'm saying is basically: don't go into a tournament expecting that judges will allow it. Go into a competition, and a judge says ok? Good for you. If not, make sure you're not screwed over because you expected it to work.

Zafos wrote:In the end, though, this is just the
I am afraid this isn't enough of a justification. For example, penguin soldier can't target itself, even though the card doesn't specify so.

Except that Penguin Soldier CAN target itself.

Its not a valid target if its destroyed though (due to Battle).

darkwolf777 wrote:
Except that Penguin Soldier CAN target itself.

Haha, I didn't think of that strangely enough! Well, mystical space typhoon can't target itself, right?

But that's a spell anyway...can u think of a monster that can't target itself with its effect, without the text specifically saying so?

Or is NeostheAncientOne really on to sth? If there really is no other monster card like that, y would Dark neos be the 1st 1 to? In other words, if all monsters that can't target themselves state that in their text, Dark Neos would be 1 of them.

storyteller wrote:Japanese is my second language and, as far as I'm concerned, might as well be my first language. It's hard to say whether my Chinese is better or my Japanese is better. It saddens me somewhat to say that, in the end, English is my best language.

Yeah, I just h8 that english was chosen as the official language of europe, instead of greek. English are simple and that's y many ppl from all over the world can understand each other so easily, but it's too easy and not nearly as descriptive and rich as other languages.

I don't know who's answering that wiki. Considering that it can be edited by the public like most other wiki... I don't think I'd believe that the one who wrote
it was an actual official.

The quote gives off the impression it is from an official site or sth, while the 1 pasting it may not be. An impression is not enough to rue, though...

As for the ruling, considering how much trouble and discrepancies we've found on the quest to the right ruling, chances are judges at tournaments aren't even guaranteed to rule correctly on this matter. It could go either way, depending on the judge. What I'm saying is basically: don't go into a tournament expecting that judges will allow it. Go into a competition, and a judge says ok? Good for you. If not, make sure you're not screwed over because you expected it to work.

That is a wise piece of advice. Hey, maybe the facebook judge group could try to find and address some1 more experienced, or an official, even.

I think there was an email mentioned in this thread, but it's validity was doubted by another post...So is there an email or sth like that we could use?

Or is the judges' group decision enough for a TCG ruling? At this point I'm just confused...is this thread solved or not? I feel lost in the fog of neglect konami has brought upon us.

Somebody in the fb group said this

"a long time ago. it was ruled that dark neos cannot target himself, to prevent the loop."
And 2 ppl agreed.

OCG says you can target itself.

Ｑ：無効化の効果で自分自身を選択することはできますか？
Ａ：できます。(10/05/09)

darkwolf777 wrote:

Zafos wrote:In the end, though, this is just the
I am afraid this isn't enough of a justification. For example, penguin soldier can't target itself, even though the card doesn't specify so.

Except that Penguin Soldier CAN target itself.

Its not a valid target if its destroyed though (due to Battle).

Penguin Soldier can target itself, and it is an old story that every mods here know. But Penguin Soldier's effect doesn't negate anything, so there is no suitable comparison between Penguin Soldier and Dark Neos here.

BlackwingRa wrote:

darkwolf777 wrote:

Zafos wrote:In the end, though, this is just the
I am afraid this isn't enough of a justification. For example, penguin soldier can't target itself, even though the card doesn't specify so.

Except that Penguin Soldier CAN target itself.

Its not a valid target if its destroyed though (due to Battle).

Penguin Soldier can target itself, and it is an old story that every mods here know. But Penguin Soldier's effect doesn't negate anything, so there is no suitable comparison between Penguin Soldier and Dark Neos here.

Yeah, sry for the stupid mistake

The comparison would be that of 2 monsters that cannot target themselves, even though the text doesn't specify that. It would be a counter argument to what NeosTheAncientOne said. Now I wonder if he's on to sth(more on that in my previous post).

TheBlackRoseGuy wrote:Somebody in the fb group said this

"a long time ago. it was ruled that dark neos cannot target himself, to prevent the loop."
And 2 ppl agreed.

So, is that enough to make a TCG ruling? Idk how these things work

Key wrote:OCG says you can target itself.

Ｑ：無効化の効果で自分自身を選択することはできますか？
Ａ：できます。(10/05/09)

Thanks for joining in.

Ok, so if no1 disagrees with this, it means we have an OCG ruling.