Forum:Enemy Controller

Me and my friend cannot agree. With Enemy Controller's second effect, can you tribute one of your opponent's monsters? Or does it have to be one of your own?

• You have to tribute a monster on your side of the field. --Bluedog (Talk) 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tribute (for monsters) is, by definition, a way of voluntarily sending a monster you control from the field to the Graveyard, for the cost or the effect of a card, or to perform a Summon. Your opponent's monsters are not under your control, so you can't Tribute them unless you have activated a card that specifically allows you to do so (Soul Exchange). If you gain control of an opponent's monster with no restrictions (i.e. with Brain Control), you can use that monster as a Tribute. --Darth Covah (Talk | Contribs) 00:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

That's what I've always said, now maybe they will believe me -.-

---

I have a Stardust and Jinzo on the field. I attack Fluff Token(opponent's monster) with my Jinzo then my opponent activates Emeny Controller's second effect, tributing its token and gain control of my Stardust, does a replay occur? Gomer123 (talk • contribs) 01:26, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Of course, since you lost the attack target without having your attack negated and the monsters on the defender's side of the field changed there will be a replay.Amadeus Von Blastoise (talk • contribs) 04:08, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

New question

My opponent used "Enemy Controller" to tribute his monster and taken my monster during Battle Phase, at the point he is attacking me directly (Spell Striker). Is that not true? --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 20:56, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

eh... I'm not sure what you are actually asking. Of course your opponent can attack you directly with spell striker, after that tribute him and take your monster (and attack with it if it is in attack position). -dest- (talk • contribs) 21:05, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

1. He declared an attack with Spell Striker.
2. I activated Red Nova's effect to remove himself to halt the attack
3. He activated his Enemy Controller, per to chain to Nova's remove effect, by tribute Spell Striker to take Nova into his control.
   

--FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 21:10, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

he can do that, but red nova would still be removed from play due to its effect and everything your opponent reached was loosing spell striker and enemy controller^^ -dest- (talk • contribs) 21:19, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks, I was just making sure since the real ruling in battle phase should have atk/def change or position switch. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 21:21, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

He still refuse to believe that as the Target is removed from the field, which making the resolve failed. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 21:38, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who did the move and this is how i got my reasoning. Red nova effect targets and during the resolve he removes himself. So i atk he targets me for the effect but i chain to the effect so my effect would go last meaning i would my monster would go for the cost and i would take his Nova. since nova lost his target it wont resolve meaning it stays around. — This unsigned comment was made by 74.235.152.228 (talk • contribs)

I am the one who process this move and that is how I got my reasoning. Red Nova's effect is targeting and during the resolve, that dragon is removing from play himself. So I attacked, he targeted my "Spell Striker" to activate his dragon's effect, but I chained to the effect with my "Enemy Controller", therefore my effect is second in the chain, meaning that I would using my monster as a cost and I would have taken his Nova. Since the target for it effect is gone, it won't be able to resolve. That mean it should stay around. (Translated by FredCat, to help understand what he does mean.)

That is my opponent who post up there. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 21:44, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, FredCat100 asked me to take a look at this problem. Please note that I am NOT a judge. I can ask a friend or two who are judges, however I do not have the power to make an official ruling.

• Player A has Spell Striker (attack mode) and Player B has Red Nova Dragon (attack mode). Spell Striker attacks, Red Nova Dragon activates its ability, Enemy Controller is used tributing Spell Striker and targeting Red Nova Dragon.
• By what I understand, Red Nova Dragon has its ability activate and then have both effects activate at the same time. Due to this, all effects that can activate must activate. This said, Red Nova must be removed from play and the attack is stopped, With Enemy Controller used, nothing changes. Red Nova Dragon would be Removed from Play and the attack (now no longer happening due to the monster leaving the field) would be negated if it still happened. The only thing I am unsure of is if the monster, Nova, is removed from play because it is on the opponent's side (Player A) of the field. I believe this is still true because the effect MUST take place because it was activated. I will check with my judge friend to find out more. If the Nova is removed from play, the origionl owner would be the one with the ability to Special Summon it. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 21:57, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Understandable, and I only wish to know more prove. Thanks for your respond. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 21:59, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

That user - 74.235.152.228 - ever backed this up with D.D. Crow vs. Monster Reborn. As of D.D. Crow being Enemy Controller and Monster Reborn being Red Nova. Is that really true? --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • Grand Convergence:Contributions/FredCat100|S.C.]]} 22:05, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

He don't like to continue respond on here because of this comment; cause they are all idiots and i dont feel like waiting for the response. doesnt it make sense to you? (Which mean Dino, Dest and Geovanni are just dumb version in this site and he has this site back him up) and still deny that Red Nova Dragon can resolved like normal. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 22:13, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

That appeared that he's right - The effect to negate an attack targets the attacking monster. (As mentioned in Red Nova Dragon's Card Rulings) --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 22:20, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

In that case (D.D. Crow vs Monster Reborn), MR requires the monster in the Graveyard. In that case, MR has only one effect and that cannot resolve due to the target disappearing. In this case, there are two effects and one does not rely on the other to occur. For this case (Enemy Controller vs Red Nova Dragon), Red Nova's effect is still resolving. Red Nova Dragon's effect says that Red is RFP and the attack stops. No attack does not mean Red is not RFP. This is compaired to Pot of Avarice which DOES require the first effect to happen before the second (return the 5 monsters, THEN draw two cards), in that case, the first effect MUST occur if there is a chance to use the second. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 22:23, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Hey FredCat! if you get a chance, could you check out my second Sandbox? (listed on my user page). I need work on that deck and I am looking for ways to improve it. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 22:23, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

For the whole part about targeting for Red Nova's effect: this is only needed for the chance to activate the effect. Nova targets it. Then because the target is acceptable, the effect resolves. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 22:23, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

To make it clearer;

1. My opponent attacked with "Spell Striker", that is normal way.
2. I activate my "Red Nova Dragon", removed itself from play. That's Chain 1.
3. THEN he activated "Enemy Controller" on my Red Nova's effect OR my activation, that's a Chain 2.

All those are in single attack, which result that Red Nova can missed the chance. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 22:26, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

It still needs a ruling bsed on if the effect can still occur while the attack is negated. In this case, (I may be wrong and Negate Attack may need to be Chain #1, in that case, I will look for another card that fits the requirement) Negate Attack could be used after Red Nova Dragon's attack. That would be the same case. The attack is no longer occuring. Red Nova Dragon may still be RFP. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 22:34, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Look like it's time for Yami Wheeler's turn to use his power. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 22:35, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Ruling from Negate Attack's Ruling page: ■If a card like "Mirror Force" is activated in response to an attack, then "Negate Attack" can still be activated in chain. However, note that "Negate Attack" will resolve first, so cards like "Enchanted Javelin" or "Magical Arm Shield" will resolve without effect because the monster is no longer attacking. Card like "Mirror Force" or "Widespread Ruin" which have the text, "Activate only when your opponent declares an attack." only have the attack declaration as activation conditions, so their effects will still be applied even if the attack is negated. If "Kunai with Chain" is activated and then a chained card negates the attack, then "Kunai with Chain" will still give +500 ATK, but the attacking monster will not be changed to Defense Position.[2] (OCG Ruling #2). In this case, Then Red Nova would be RFP no matter where it is or when in the turn it is. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 22:40, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Nova Dragon's effect targets, so if that monster who was attacking vanished from the field via alternate cause, what would happening? You still think that Red Nova still resolved as normal? And Negate Attack don't target, so it won't compare with the dragon. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 22:43, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Nova D only requires an attack. It targets the monster, yes but the attack is important. If I am correct, the Attack could be considered "Chain #1". With that, then the attack is going to resolve without effect because the monster is removed from the field. In that case, the effect would still happen because you can negate a card that will have no effect when it resolves. This is due to the card (red Nova) specifing the Attack and not the Attacking monster. This shows that if Negate Attack was used, Red Nova would be RFP because the conditions for its effect were correct when it was activated eve-n though it is no longer the Battle Phase. I am still asking my judge friend for his opinion but I think he is at work right now so it may take me a little time to get the answer. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 23:00, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with geovanni, I don't see why the second effect should suddenly disappear. Other than MR vs Crow the target for the effect is still there. Red Nova affects himself with it, not the attacking monster or anything.

and sorry for being so late, I had to learn for a test tomorrow :p -dest- (talk • contribs) 23:31, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

That's not a deal. My opponent still deny and only following TCG ruling. If no Target, then it's not work. (shrug) --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 23:33, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

If a card is chained to Depth Amulet, to remove the monster from the field before Depth Amulet resolves, Depth Amulet will still resolve and you will still discard the card.

If Red Nova Dragon is the same, Red Nova Dragon will still remove itself from play. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 23:40, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

he should just read the cards text... honestly, what's not to understand here?

1. "When your opponent's monster declares an attack, you can select it" ->select the monster that is attacking and that is done during effect activation.

2. "then remove this card from play" -> that happens next, doesn't matter what happened to the attacking monster, the first thing is properly done.

3. "and negate the attack." -> that happens after rfp... and if the monster doesn't exist any more so let it be^^

-dest- (talk • contribs) 23:54, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

He just say that Target is no longer around mean it's missing time. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 00:03, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Just as FalzarFZ said, with Depth Amulet, the discard effect (RFP for this case) still occurs. It is a second part of the effect that does not rely on the attack being negated.

Be careful -dest-. The word "and" in between the two effects says that they activate at the same time. If it said "then" then it would activate that way; it would also cause the second effect to rely on the first occuring.

Another question to ask is if the opposite is true. If I activate Imperial Iron Wall after I activate RND's effect, could the effect still work without removing RND from play? I think it is yes just the same. (remember that you cannot activate the effect of a card when its effects cannot be used. therefore the ability to activate if Imperial Iron Wall was already active is still up for debate).

FredCat100, if the person will not play by official rules do one of the following: 1 - Play him in a tornament and call him on cheating. 2 - Don't play with him. 3 - Do just the same. disregard the OCG rules when you play him and use some of the numerous FTKs that have been crippled by an OCG ruling. Any way you look at it, you still win.

Don't forget to mention that the effect COULD activate because the target was there when it was activated. Just like Grand Convergence doesn't have to have Macro Cosmos on the field during resolution --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 00:15, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the judge at his tournament said that "Enemy Controller" activate is legit, but never said anything about Red Nova Dragon's remove negate. RND is just recently release and he don't know it very well, as of not experience it reality yet. I do have the copy itself. The only reason he want to get the prove is the target failed, like "Sakuretsu Armor's" effect. He also called "Negate Attack" untargeted. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 00:20, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well I would just cite the Negate attack ruling and the Grand Convergence ruling\. That should clear everything up. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 00:50, January 10, 2011 (UTC)