Forum:Skill drain & morphing jar 2

If "Skill Drain" is active on the field and a face down "Morphing Jar 2" (or any other flip effect monster) is flipped face up by an attack, and DOES NOT survive the battle, does it's effect resolve at the point it is sent to the graveyard after being destroyed by the battle, and thus not negated by the active "Skill Drain", or is the jar still considered "on the field" at the time it's effect activates? I have encountered duelists in person and read contradictory statements regarding this scenario and would like the correct answer please. My understanding is that flip effects are not negated in this scenario and have been dueling under this assumption.

Thank You,

167.137.1.16 (talk) 15:06, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.16 (talk) 15:06, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

The eff activates and resolves in substep 6 of the damage step.

The mons is sent to grave in substep 7 of the damage step.

--Lê (talk • contribs) 15:43, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Based on the breakdown of the battlephase Substep 6:Resolve Effects, the aformentioned "Morphing Jar 2" is now considered destroyed, yet STILL on the field?? ("If the Flip Effect of the flipped monster targets, you cannot select a target that has been destroyed during damage calculation.") For example, my "Morphing Jar 2". I am curious as to why a monster card can be considered both destroyed AND face up on the field at resolution of it's effect? So, the flipped flip effect monster's effect that was destroyed by battle WILL be negated?? And, not that I do not trust you personally, as I do not know you, but I have both read and heard so much that contradicts the other on this that I require more input from at least 1 other source.

Thank You.

167.137.1.15 (talk) 16:08, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.15 (talk) 16:08, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

FLIP Effect activated and resolved on the field, reckless if they're destroyed or not. Same thing approves with all other cards in the chains - like "Mystical Space Typhoon" being target by "Dark World Lightning", and the former still on the field when "Dark World Lightning" resolved - without the effect. --iFredCat 16:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

And yes, I do realize that "Morphing Jar 2" does not target, however, this does not explain why a monster card can be considered both destroyed AND face up on the field simultaneously. (this is my interpetation based on the language of the text used in the Breakdown of the Battlephase) I am reading this incorrectly? Please, I would like clarification on this.

167.137.1.15 (talk) 16:14, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.15 (talk) 16:14, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is true. However, if the flip effect monster is no longer face up on the field, (at resolution of it's effect) it's effect will not be negated by "Skill Drain". My question is how a monster can be considered both destroyed AND face up on the field simultaneously. Is there an unofficial "limbo zone" like that of a monster who's summon is being contested by a card the likes of "Solemn Warning"?

167.137.1.16 (talk) 16:18, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.16 (talk) 16:18, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I never say that "Morphing Jar #2" does target - I only made a reference of the reason why "Dark World Lightning" failed to destroying "Mystical Space Typhoon" since it was already face-up in the resolve.

And yes, "Limbo Zone" does exist; if you flipped summon your "Critter" and your opponent activated "Solemn Warning", Critter's effect won't activate since it was never on the field at that time. But that's not true for "Morphing Jar #2", it was still on the field when it was flipping to face-up and destroyed by the Battle. --iFredCat 16:21, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the effect itself resolves on the field, regardless of where the monster is at resolution? If so, then I agree, as the only significant factor is WHERE the effect activated, not WHERE the monster is at resolution of it's effect. But, again, this does not explain why a monster can be considered both destroyed AND face up on the field simultaneously. (if this is the case) My understanding of "destroyed" when referencing Yu-Gi-Oh, is that the card that was "destroyed" is no longer on the field. (it matters not WHERE) Is this not the very definition of "destroyed" in Yu-Gi-Oh?

167.137.1.13 (talk) 16:27, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.13 (talk) 16:27, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I recalled that "Stardust Dragon" has his effect that activated and resolved on the field, even if it was Tributed. --iFredCat 16:34, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Correct, you did not. That comment was added after I realized that when referencing the Breakdown of the Battlephase, I neglected to mention that "Morphing Jar 2" does not target. (which I do not see as having any bearing on why a monster card can be considered both face up on the field and destroyed)

167.137.1.13 (talk) 16:37, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.13 (talk) 16:37, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the unofficial, but generally accepted "limbo zone" referencing a monster(s) attempting to be summoned. My second question was, is there such a "limbo zone" for monsters destroyed by battle, but not yet sent to the graveyard (such as this scenario with "Morphing Jar 2" in sub step 6 of BOTBP), and if not, why not? If so, how is a monster considered both destroyed AND face up on the field simultaneously? This seems to defy logic when applied to Yu-Gi-Oh. (again IF this is the case, it seems to read this way)

167.137.1.13 (talk) 16:48, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.13 (talk) 16:48, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Your reference to "Stardust Dragon" was spot on. This, and "Koa'Ki Meiru" rock types (guardian, sandman, wall) were the monsters I had in mind from my previous post.

167.137.1.13 (talk) 16:53, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.13 (talk) 16:53, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

They are still treated as being face-up on the field, and Skill Drain will negate it. But it's the rule that if it has been decided that a monster will be destroyed or would leave the field by some other way, effects cannot be applied to that monster. That's why Penguin Soldier can't return itself to the hand when destroyed by battle or why MST cannot target itself. 31.11.101.253 (talk) 17:36, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, "MST" target itself was a glitch in old Yu-Gi-Oh! games... from what I have heard (also seen in Forum:Idiots who don't know rulings or how the game works.). --iFredCat 17:43, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

So the short answer is, monsters ARE still treated as being face-up on the field in this situation because it's a rule. Ok. I will follow this (absurd) rule which is actually stating that a monster can be both considered "face up on the field" and "destroyed", at the same time. Utterly ridiculous, but thank you for the input. Lastly, can ANYONE tell me WHY THIS IS (reasoning) other than "its a rule"?

167.137.1.13 (talk) 18:46, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.13 (talk) 18:46, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the main reason why this is so, is because it prevents abuse with skill drain and flip effect monsters. ex: GKS & skill drain comes to mind.

167.137.1.13 (talk) 18:48, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.13 (talk) 18:48, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

It's not considered destroyed. It's considered set for destruction. 31.11.101.253 (talk) 18:50, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Is this term "set for destruction" (destined for grave, gravebound, etc) used when referencing such situations in the official sense, or is it a manufactured term to meet the needs of explaining situations that arose naturally over the course of many years as newer cards were released which caused such situations to arise in the first place? By official, I am asking if it is an official Konami decreed term, such as how "removed from play" became (officially) "banished". And, to be absolutely clear, there is no "limbo zone" between substeps 5 and 7 in BOTBP? I am only speaking to the scenario I brought up with "Morphing Jar 2" (and other flip effect monsters not surviving battle) but it seems that applying the such terms as "set for destruction" actually make an already jam-packed BOTBP unnecessarily complex. For that matter, can anyone speculate as to why there is no official "zone" or otherwise applicable term for monsters whose summon is being contested instead of an unofficial "limbo zone" (though generally accepted; did this answer my own question?)

167.137.1.14 (talk) 19:41, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.14 (talk) 19:41, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Well, those are the rules. They were made to be beyond common sense for the game to be fair. For example, missing the timing. You cannot explain it using common sense (like there's any difference when and if something happens). 31.11.101.253 (talk) 20:07, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

If you think that's so absurd, then why does "Winged Kuriboh" still activated when "Ancient Gear Golem" attacked it in Yu-Gi-Oh! GX? While in real ruling, "Winged Kuriboh" does not activating and you're still taking damage while that resolved - therefore that approve the same logical as "Morphing Jar #2" and "Skill Drain"/"Royal Command"; "Morphing Jar #2" has its effect negated because that monster was still on the field when it was activating and resolving, then sending to the Graveyard once Damage Calculation ended. --iFredCat 20:47, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I see.. "beyond common sense for the game to be fair" you claim? Surely you are being disingenuous. Are you actually comparing missing the timing to BOTBP in terms of complexity? "missing the timing" was understood to me after my first few months of dueling. I will pose this question to you then. I look forward to you or anyone else's response. What is the one aspect in Yu-Gi-Oh from which arises the most conflict in terms of real time gameplay? And please back up your answer with reasoning and logic, not merely a seemingly ill thought blanket statement such as 'thems the rules'. (which I have no issue in following, simply questioning their validity in some areas)

Thanks

167.137.1.14 (talk) 21:08, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.14 (talk) 21:08, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am only relating these inquiries to real play, not scenarios that occured in the series. (though GX is one of the more enjoyable/but not quite like the original)

167.137.1.14 (talk) 21:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.14 (talk) 21:11, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

"Missing the Timing" is always occurring whenever the card's effect is not activating correctly - like "Monster Reborn" missed the target and fizzled out like a shortage batteries; the target was banished in the chain to "Monster Reborn" activation. Other example: "Fortune Lady Light" is one of few cards that can missing the timing, if used by other cards that eat her up as fodder, rather than simple banished her from the field. "Cyber Valley" is one of few cards that can making Lighty not working right; it's because last thing was "Draw 2 cards", not "Leaving the field". Again, you can't chaining more than once in same chain with "Light and Darkness Dragon" because its effect said to reducing 500 ATK/DEF to negating the unfortunately card that started the chain; however the second or rest of other cards in the same chain can resolving normally. That's one most difficult part of the game mechanic to reasoning and understanding - I am still learning on that part. --iFredCat 21:14, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Yu-Gi-Oh is far more complex than most people (even many duelists) realize. This is why I have continued posting in this thread. Simply dismissing my previous post (by ********.253) and stating the rules were made intentionally to be "beyond common sense" completely missed the timing of my point ;) If understanding the ins and outs of Yu-Gi-Oh were truly "beyond common sense", then it is doubtful there would be so many queries on the rulings page each day, each hour, minute, etc.. (THIS is common sense) I meant no disrespect to the game, but it can be infuriating when dealing with contrary statements on rulings. (most especially BOTBP) This is also why I kept on about my initial inquiry, I would prefer if Konami chose it's wording more deliberately, so as to avoid confusion and conflict amongst it's fan base when engaging in duels. I am not saying Konami has not or not tried to do so, but simply giving greater consideration to it's choice of words would go a long way, especially when a sizeable portion of it's revenue comes from younger people.

167.137.1.14 (talk) 21:42, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.14 (talk) 21:42, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Also, thank you FredCat for your response.

167.137.1.14 (talk) 21:45, June 13, 2013 (UTC)N Kram167.137.1.14 (talk) 21:45, June 13, 2013 (UTC)