Forum:Mystic Box vs Unaffected/Cannot Switch

I am sure I read about tips using Mystic Box to switch unswitchable/unaffected monsters (i.e. Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV4).

However a friend of mine said that it was not allowed to be done in a game he owns. (GX/5D Tag Force or something I think)

So anyone might mind explaining? FearNagae (talk • contribs) 14:35, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

hu? where exactly did you read that? That is just wrong. Unswitchable is unswitchable and there is nothing that can change that. -dest- (talk • contribs) 15:56, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Umm I'm talking about using Mystuc Box to destroy an opponent's monster without switching Horus. FearNagae (talk • contribs) 03:12, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Destroying a monster and shifting control of another monster are considered to occur simultaneously. If one can't be done, then so won't the other. (I got lazy and copied that, see below). Similar to Blindly Loyal Goblin, if HorusLV4/Goblin is the only monster you control, you cannot activate Mystic Box. If you control other monsters as well when you activate it, HorusLV4/Goblin cannot be selected for the effect. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:33, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Just a few corrections!

Monsters that are unaffected by Spell/Trap Cards have different mechanics of the monsters that cannot switch control. Since "cannot" always overrides "can", you cannot target a monster that cannot switch control, like Blindly Loyal Goblin, with Mystic Box. (If it is the only monster on your field then Mystic Box cannot be activated). But you can target a monster that is unaffected by Spell Cards, like Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV6, since nothing* prevents you from doing this.

Then, when the effect, resolves Horus the Black Flame Dragon LV6 cannot switch control (since it is unaffected by Mystic Box's effect) and stays on your field. But the opponent's monster is still destroyed!

Also, the 2 parts of Mystic Box's effect ("switching control of your monster" and "destroying the opponent's monster") do not resolve simultaneously. You first destroy the opponent's monster and then switch control of yours to the opponent.

*no "cannots"

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 06:38, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Just checking. If the 2 monsters are just regular monsters (not HorusLV4/6), if the monster cannot be destroyed, will control still switch? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 06:54, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

It would be the same! If somehow the opponent's monster cannot be destroyed by Mystic Box's effect your monster will still switch control. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 07:12, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

I was checking if this observation was true... "If I were to say: Unless there is an 'all or nothing' ruling given; the first part (before the 'and') always takes priority (e.g. If the first part can't be done, the whole effect disappears. If the first part can be done, but the 2nd part can't, the the first part still resolves). Can someone provide a ruling that contradicts this?" (an explanation on how I got that is on the page in the link)

That would be the first contradiction, if you're absolutely sure that it is correct. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 07:21, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Some things in Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG do not make sense since Konami has messed up things with the Rulings. One of those messed up situations are the effects that have 2 parts.

Those parts can be linked with a word like: "and", "then", ".", "and then", and more!

There are 3 questions that someone can have.

First is if those parts resolve simultaneously. Normally the "and" effects are considered to resolve simultaneously. The "then", ".", "and then" effects normally are considered to resolve separately.

But since Konami messed things up in those situations (Rulings and lores), not all of those effects resolve the way that normally would be. For example some "and" effects do not resolve simultaneously. Some "then" effects resolve simultaneously. And those aren't just a few to call them "exceptions". They're A LOT!

Second is if an effect prevents one of the parts from resolving can the card be activated and resolve only the other part? It is the same thing. Some cards can be activated when the second part cannot resolve and they resolve only the first part. Some other cards cannot be activated at all.

Third is if a card with an effect with 2 parts is activated and another card is chained (or a condition applies) and forbids one of the parts from resolving. Will the other part resolve normally or the whole effect disappears? Same confusion!

What I want to say is that with those Rulings and lores the cards have right now we CAN'T find a way to have a general Ruling about this situations and have the other contradictory Rulings as "exception to the Rule" since there would be too many exceptions. The only way to understand how a card works is to check the Rulings of that card.

ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 08:21, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

I see.

Then, do you know if there is there a way to check in the OCG lore? Or did Konami mess that up too? -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 08:34, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't searched it that much in the OCG. Sure thing is that the OCG lores are better than the TCG, but I'm sure the same problems exist there too! Someone cannot understand just by the lore of the card if the 2 parts resolve simultaneously or if one of them can resolve when the other cannot. He has to check the card's Rulings. ATEMVEGETA (Talk) 09:20, February 7, 2011 (UTC)