Contradictory rulings

I've played this game for quite some time now. I would consider myself well versed in most rulings, but I've come to find that some cards, and their rulings, defy both common sense and logic applied to other cards. I understand that this game has come a long way and that many of the rulings are made subjectively by judges from different tournaments rather than the core game mechanics. This causes a build up of conflict as all the different arbitrary rulings begin to mingle until they basically reach a point where they are so knotted up that in order to make a basic ruling you have to cite 5 examples from 3 different sources on why this happens this way.

This leads me to my first point. It seems that for every ruling there is always some citation used from some arbitrary ruling made by some judge from some time or another. Citations are all well and good and can save time when looking up rulings and help rulings to remain constant. However, problems arise when only citations are used instead of logic when looking at rulings. Let me give you an example:

We are all familiar with Divine Wraith (DW) right? Well its writing says "Negate the activation of an Effect Monster's effect and destroy that Effect Monster." Notice the "and". This should mean that this card must not negate an effect, but also destroy it. Then how can it be used on cards that are already destroyed after their effects occurred? Cards like Sangan that are DESTROYED by battle can be be negated, the agent of judgement - Saturn who's cost is to tribute then who's effect activates in the graveyard can also be negated. I've done some research and it seems that the consensus is that DW does not need to destroy a card in order to work. That simply negating it is enough. Does this mean I can use DW to just kill effect monsters withut negating effects? Going further it can also negate effects that occur in the graveyard or hand (Gorz and sangan). The logic here is that "Well the card doesn't say it can't work in the graveyard." Well yea sure, but the card also doesn't say that it automatically awards a victory now does it? Now let's look at another card and its ruling. Dragged down into the grave states "You and your opponent look at each other's hands, select 1 card from each other's hands and discard them to the Graveyard, and each draw 1 card." Well it cannot be activated if you or your opponent has no hand. Why can you pick and choose for DW and not for Dragged down?

The complexity of this game never ceases to amaze me.

There are quite a few cards that cannot activate unless both x "and" y conditions are met so I agree that it is illogical for Divine Wrath to not follow the same ruling. Cards, of course, cannot be destroyed if they are in the graveyard already. Using that justification would open up an even larger hole.

you can also view it on different way
"and" doesn't always implies you must do 'this' and you must also do 'that', rather it can implies 'this' and 'that' occurs simultaneously.

therefore the single card ruling was there to explain.

pretty sure you can destroy a card in the grave, its a semantic, but im pretty sure most cards that neg and destroy work on cards in the grave

cards on the graveyard (or banished) cannot be destroyed (again).

You can't destroy cards in the graveyard.

You can chain Divine Wrath to a monster's effect that activate in the graveyard and 'destroy' it (even though it's not destruction, it's just semantics). Same way Solemn Warning can negate and 'destroy' a destroyed by battle Mystic Tomato.

Part of it is how konami wants the card to work. They want the card to be negated and gone to the graveyard/banished zone. At the same time, they want it to negate cards that also activate in the graveyard/banished zone.

So they rule them as such.

This isn't a contradiction in rulings so much as it might seem like a contradiction in semantics. And even then it is possible to argue that "and" in one case implies simultanaety where as another it implies "must happan".

An acctual ruling contradiction would be closer to "solemn warning can negate mystic tomato but Divine wrath can't" (a hypothetical). That isn't to say that there "aren't" ruling contradictions or bKSS, but typically any card taht can negate and destroy "something" doesn't have to destroy the card in order to negate it.

>quite some time
>dark world

oh right... you must be the one who thinking they immediately discard a card when using dark world lightning since it doesn't have to destroy it

I've done some research and it seems that the consensus is that DW does not need to destroy a card in order to work. That simply negating it is enough. Does this mean I can use DW to just kill effect monsters withut negating effects? Going further it can also negate effects that occur in the graveyard or hand (Gorz and sangan).

The newcomer of this game never ceases to amaze me.

The logic here is that "Well the card doesn't say it can't work in the graveyard." Well yea sure, but the card also doesn't say that it automatically awards a victory now does it? Now let's look at another card and its ruling. Dragged down into the grave states "You and your opponent look at each other's hands, select 1 card from each other's hands and discard them to the Graveyard, and each draw 1 card." Well it cannot be activated if you or your opponent has no hand. Why can you pick and choose for DW and not for Dragged down?

You must be new here™, spell card being used are on field, not hand

kangtuji wrote:>quite some time
>dark world

oh right... you must be the one who thinking they immediately discard a card when using dark world lightning since it doesn't have to destroy it

Go back to 3rd grade reading comprehension class.

dw lightning doesnt need to destroy per se, but it needs a valid target in order to trigger the discard effect, if you target a chained trap, then theres no dice because it needs to hit a set card

DW lighting needs to destroy the face down card to discard


you can prevent it by:
chaining its target so it will be face up and wont be destroyed by DW lighting effect

destroying the target yourself by chaining mst

removing the card from the field with any other card effect (like pleidades)

DW lighting needs to destroy the face down card to discard

Opposed to Divine Wrath which has the same logical wording (other than "and" meaning simultaneously imperative and "then" meaning ensuingly imperative)

Yet Divine Wrath works differently.


MAKES SENSE.

no, not the same as dw, destroying the facedown is a cost to activate the effect of discarding

Generally you read the card from left to right and follow the order as far as you can.

In Divine Wrath's case, it says to negate before destroy, so you negate first and destroy afterwards. If you cannot destroy you just don't destroy. If you cannot negate for whatever reason you immediately stop there in the sentence.

Same with Dragged Down. You must first look at each players hand. If you can't look at one players hand, you cannot fulfill the action required and it immediately stops.

And Kangtuji, that was completely uncalled for.

S.S.A. wrote:no, not the same as dw, destroying the facedown is a cost to activate the effect of discarding

destroying is never a cost.

then just go with what mirror said and ima shut up

Miror B. wrote:Generally you read the card from left to right and follow the order as far as you can.

In Divine Wrath's case, it says to negate before destroy, so you negate first and destroy afterwards. If you cannot destroy you just don't destroy. If you cannot negate for whatever reason you immediately stop there in the sentence.

Same with Dragged Down. You must first look at each players hand. If you can't look at one players hand, you cannot fulfill the action required and it immediately stops.

And Kangtuji, that was completely uncalled for.

In most cases, if a card has a mandatory second part of a subsequentual effect, it must be able resolve the whole effect in order for the card to be activated. Examples:

Mask Change must be able to special summon a monster to be activated, even though that part of the effect is secondary. (Cannot be activated if Fossil Dyna is on the field)

Scrapstorm must be able to draw a card to be activated, even though that isn't the first part of what happens when resolving the effect. (Cannot be activated if Protector of the Sanctuary is face-up on the field)

etc.

The same would of course apply for simultanuous parts of an effect. What OP mentions is pretty much the only exception to this rule, as far as I know

LittLeD wrote:
In most cases, if a card has a mandatory second part of a subsequentual effect, it must be able resolve the whole effect in order for the card to be activated. Examples:

Mask Change must be able to special summon a monster to be activated, even though that part of the effect is secondary. (Cannot be activated if Fossil Dyna is on the field)

Scrapstorm must be able to draw a card to be activated, even though that isn't the first part of what happens when resolving the effect. (Cannot be activated if Protector of the Sanctuary is face-up on the field)

etc.

The same would of course apply for simultanuous parts of an effect. What OP mentions is pretty much the only exception to this rule, as far as I know

This only applies if you know up front the whole card would resolve without effect. If a card has 2 or more effects of which 1 can resolve you can activate the card.

Ultimate lol wrote:This only applies if you know up front the whole card would resolve without effect. If a card has 2 or more effects of which 1 can resolve you can activate the card.

Such as in System Down vs Necrovalley.

Ultimate lol wrote:

LittLeD wrote:
In most cases, if a card has a mandatory second part of a subsequentual effect, it must be able resolve the whole effect in order for the card to be activated. Examples:

Mask Change must be able to special summon a monster to be activated, even though that part of the effect is secondary. (Cannot be activated if Fossil Dyna is on the field)

Scrapstorm must be able to draw a card to be activated, even though that isn't the first part of what happens when resolving the effect. (Cannot be activated if Protector of the Sanctuary is face-up on the field)

etc.

The same would of course apply for simultanuous parts of an effect. What OP mentions is pretty much the only exception to this rule, as far as I know

This only applies if you know up front the whole card would resolve without effect. If a card has 2 or more effects of which 1 can resolve you can activate the card.

Where did I say otherwise? If a card has a "2 or more"-part effect where all parts are mandatory, all parts must be able to resolve by what you know given public information.

The System Down ruling is extremely DERP because of the inconsitency we've had with necrovalley in the past. I could bet $50 that if a knowledgable Konami TCG representual was asked today if System down could be activated with Necrovalley on the field, they'd say no.