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)

For Dest- He denied that because he said that it's a target. And if the Target is gone, then effect is jamming and no longer workable.

For Geovanni- He denied because Negate Attack don't target and Nova Dragon is indeed a target.

For Falzar- He denied because Depth Amulet is continuous while Red Nova Dragon is trigger, so it's impossible.

Any more argument against him? --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 01:52, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

He compared "Enemy Controller" as "Jinzo" while "Red Nova Dragon" as "Bottomless Trap Hole". That's what his solution is. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 01:55, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

While Depth Amulet is a Continuous Trap. It has the properties of a 'Trigger-like' effect and starts a chain. It isn't a Continuous effect.

Bottomless Trap Hole can't even be activated against Jinzo in the first place. That is totally unrelated to the current situation.

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 02:55, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Then explain why the effect part not showing like, "Continuous/Trigger"? --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 03:05, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

If you mean, like how monster pages have "Card Effect Type(s):", this wikia currently does not have that section for Spells and Traps.

It could be a nice suggestion to be added at Forum:Improving "Card Effect Type(s):".

If you want a ruling that proves that some Continuous cards do in fact have things called 'Trigger-like' effects, see Card Rulings:Soul Absorption, 3rd ruling. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 03:15, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Just understand that your opponent will not play fair. Compair Red Nova Dragon to Pot of Avarice. The pot needs the first effect (returning five monsters to the deck) to occur before the second effect (draw two cards). In this case, the target (the five monsters in the graveyard) is required to not change. If it does (such as one gets RFP by D.D. Crow), then that effect can not occur. With the first effect failing, the second does. A RL example of this would be a train, with the target in this example be if the track was clear. If the track is clear the train goes down the track. If the track gets blocked, the first car derails. If the first car derails, the second will follow. For Red Nova Dragon, This is the equivalent of having two tracks and two trains. The supervisor may only check if one track is clear (that the target is correct). If he sent both trains down parallel tracks, when one gets blocked the other doesn't stop (because of the broken track).

Another problem is that it is impossible for a card to "miss the timing" unless it fits a certain criteria. That is a "when, then (you can)..." condition. While this card DOES have the criteria, "When your opponent attacks with their monster, you can target thta attacking monster." that is the full extent of the Conditional effect. After that is true, Full Steam Ahead. "Miss the Timing" can only occur here if you chose NOT to use the ability and waited for the Damage Step. This effect can only be used when "your opponent declares an attack". Because of that, you can only "miss the timing" if during the chain caused by the declaration of the attack you fail to activate the ability.

Depth Amulet in and of itself is an oddball card. While it is a Continuous Trap card, its only continuous effects are: 1 - Due to being a Continuous trap, keep this card on the field instead of sending it to the graveyard (until removed or destroyed). 2 - (I think this is a Continuous Effect but I am not 100 percent sure) When your opponent's third End Phase occurs, destroy this card. The effect that is negate the attack and discard the card is a Trigger as said before. you can compair that to a reaction ability. If you do this, I counter with this. Or If you Attack, I counter with activating an effect (discarding and negating the attack). The first TCG rulingfor Depth Amulet shows a simular case. TCG RulingsEdit ■ Discarding a card and negating the attack are considered to happen simultaneously.[1] Following this with the other ruling before: 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. (quoted from Falzar FZ).

Substitute this card with RND: If RND's target leaves the field before the effecr resolves, you still need to do the other act (remove RND from play).

This is just going in circles now... FredCat, you have three people telling you the ruling. Either take our word for it or not but either way I cannot continue this because it seems as if I am arguing with you while neither of us thinks different about the end result. Without your opponent arguing before us, nothing will get done. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 06:36, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

The "When your opponent's third End Phase occurs, destroy this card." is indeed a Continuous effect.

That line which seemed like a ruling (the one on Depth Amulet will still resolve and you will still discard the card), isn't actually a ruling. It's more of a conclusion.

It's based on what ATEMVEGETA said "When an effect has 2 parts that are linked with "and", and the 1 part cannot resolve, the second resolves normally. By the way, there are many exceptions."

and also based on what happens in WC10. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 07:13, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry Falzar FZ, I must have been mistaken, thinking that was an actual ruling you posted. I see now that it was just a conclusion. Do you know of an actual ruling that says if one cannot be done the other still happens? It would support the case.

Regardless, the games, like WC10, are really accurate when it comes to the cards' rulings. I do not think there was ever a single case where the game was used to simulate a sinareo and when an actual ruling came out it was different. if this happens in the game like we have said, there should be no further debate.

If you have any other problems FredCat100, try to get a copy of the game and show the person you using RND's ability and then use Negate Attack or a monster destroying card like Offering to the Doomed The first would show what happens when the attack is stopped by a nother card effect and the second removes the target from the field. I would be unable to do this, but maybe someone could YouTube videos of the chain and put them up for your opponent to see? --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 08:08, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

No, it was my fault for wording it like an actual ruling. Though, if it's not in "quotes" or italics or doesn't have a reference, it's probably not a quote.

First thing that came to my mind: You can use Stardust Dragon or Divine Wrath to negate a card in the graveyard, and it will still negate it, even though it can't destroy it.

Although most of that was OCG vs. TCG. There are occasionally are situations where the game was wrong. The only one that I can think of right now is Forum:Drill Warrior and BoM, but there are some where it's not because the rulings were changed.

Red Nova Dragon isn't out in many games, being a fairly new card. I'm not sure about the Tag Force games, since I don't have the console for them, but the next game I have access to is WC11. If a conclusion isn't made, even by then, I could test it out with that as soon as it comes out (all cards hack ftw). -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 08:25, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering. 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?
I kinda noticed this after seeing
Card Rulings:Drill Warrior: "When resolving the "you can discard 1 card and remove this card from play" effect of "Drill Warrior", if you cannot discard from your hand - for example, you Chained "Full Salvo" - then you cannot remove from play "Drill Warrior". However, when resolving that effect, if "Drill Warrior" cannot be removed from play - for example, "Imperial Iron Wall" was Chained - then you still discard one card from your hand."
Card Rulings:Imperial Iron Wall: "If you activate "Bottomless Trap Hole" and "Imperial Iron Wall" is chained, the destroyed monster is sent to the Graveyard instead of being removed from play." -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 10:52, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

In that minute the chaos started, it was his turn, since he was still declaring an attack. Therefore it's his Priority, not mine. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 11:26, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

@geovanni: I know that effects conected with "and" happens simultanously, what I meant was what Falzar just said ;) -dest- (talk • contribs) 11:27, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

fred, what he meant by "priority" was not the players priority but the priority which decides the order in which different effects on the same card happen. -dest- (talk • contribs) 11:29, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow, you did say that. I didn't quite get what you meant either at the time... -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 11:32, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

(facepalm) Oh well... --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 11:38, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

ok, honestly, I expressed that a bit short and without further explanation, didn't expect that so few noticed that so far... -dest- (talk • contribs) 11:40, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yea, it's quite long discussion here. --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 11:42, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

I still can't find or think of anything that contradicts the statement.

In fact, I keep finding more things which support it.

Lyla: If she can't change to DEF with her effect, she can't destroy. If you can't destroy, she still changes to DEF anyway.

Transforming Sphere: "When resolving the effect of "Transforming Sphere", if you cannot discard a card from your hand, then you do not apply the effect which equips an opponent's monster to it. If "Transforming Sphere" or the opponent's targeted monster is not on the field, then you still discard from your hand." -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 12:34, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the real point here is, Does Nova Dragon missing his time or not? --FredCat ^{Ta.P. • F.P. • J.R. • W.S. • Th.P. • S.C.} 14:54, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

why should he? His effect activates when the opponent declares an attack, once activated there can't be a wrong timing anymore. -dest- (talk • contribs) 14:58, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Continuing "New question"

Okay, sorry but I have made a new area for us to post in because my computer cannot process the large block of txt while I am typing my next post. Sorry if it takes me a few hours to respond, I got sick late at night and i am still recovering.

For each of the conditional 1 and 2 resolve at the same time, the rule is that both happen at the same time and if one fails the other still happens. A second rule says that a player cannot activate an effect when the effect cannot occur. This is why a player cannot activate RND's effect if Imperial Iron Wall is active, because one of the effects requires the monster be RFP but that cannot happen. When the chain is resolving, any effect that still can happen must still happen. The examples that are listed above (will specify in next post) have two conditions that require the first to occur before the second can. While these all are true rulings, they are NOT the correct way of playing. That is why there are rulings for them. Those rulings are that way because the traditional rules of the game works in ways that would cause those cards to act in a way konami didn't want them to act. In fact, because there is no ruling for this, we can expect that the traditional way is exactly what Konami wants for this card.

Additionally, if you look at the effects, you can interperate the two effects of those cards as a major action/effect and as sort of a "resolution cost". All the "resolution cost" have a sort of negative effect. "Discard a card", "Switch to Defence", "Remove from Play". So in this case, RND's "Resolution cost" would not be "stop the attack" it would be "RFP this card". In that case, with the previous rulings for those cards, if Imperial Iron Wall was chained, we may be able to possibly determine that the attack is not negated because that is the "benefit effect" while the "resolution cost" effect (RFP RND) is unable to happen. Regardless if the attack would be negated or not, the question overall for this discussion is if RND is removed from play due to its effect. If that ws the same as the "switch to Defence and do ___" example above, then the Defece switching, (or the RFP) still occurs which DOES strenghten our argument.

In conclusion I have detailed the previous in a list below:

1 - If a card has two effects activte at the same time, if one fails, the other still occurs. 2 - If a ruling has been made that requires one effect to happen for the other effect to work, that is because Konami made the ruling to prevent the regular rules from causing that to happen that way. This is because Konami does not want the card with two abilities to be abuse by negating a negative part of the ability and only gain benefit for the player. 3 - Many of the cards that Konami has made a ruling on (see #2 above) have a mmore beneficial effect and a lesser (or harmful) effect. In all cases where Konami has changed the rule on those cards by making a ruling, the lesser benefiting effect is required to occur first. 4 - With RND's effects, I would say that "RFP RND" is the lesser effect to "stop the opponent's attack". In that case, you MUST RFP RND in order to negate the attack, however the attack does not HAVE to be negated to RFP RND.

Regardless of which way you look at it, for your case, RND is RFP wich would benefit the side of the argument that wants RND RFP.

--LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 21:06, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here are the simutaneous effects that were just listed.

• Drill Warrior, 1 - Discard a monster card. 2 - RFP this card, S Summon next turn, get a monster bsck to hand.
• Transforming Sphere, 1 - Discard a card. 2 - Absorb a monster and increase this card's attack.
• Lyla, Lightsworn Sorceress, 1 - Switch to Defence-mode. 2 - Destroy 1 Spell/Trap.

--LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 21:13, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

• I got WC11 (with all cards), now I need to make a deck that can easily summon Red Nova Dragon... -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 12:14, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

If the attacking monster is removed from the field before Red Nova Dragon resolves, Red Nova Dragon will still be removed during resolution of its effect.

If Red Nova Dragon is removed from the field just before Red Nova Dragon resolves, the attack will not be negated. -Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 13:06, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Just as I thought. Thank you Falzar FZ, for working to get the answer to this problem. --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 17:23, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

I just found out that the game has a 'Duel Puzzle Editor' (but, I'm going to use it as an easy way to set up complex scenarios for testing). Well, now I have a good synchro deck that I probably won't use for a while in the game.

That being said, I just tried out the Spell Striker, Red Nova Dragon, E-Con scenario in the game.

My Spell Striker attacks, Red Nova Dragon activates, I chain E-Con.

E-Con resolves, Red Nova Dragon comes to my side of the field.

Red Nova Dragon resolves, removes himself and is placed in the original owner's RFP zone

During the End Phase, Red Nova Dragon Special Summoned himself to the original owner's side of the field.

-Falzar FZ- (talk page|useful stuff) 22:10, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

I am awed by this topic... it has very few discussion lists but quite long details to discussing... --FredCat 22:14, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

WOW! It has a Duel Editopr? Now I HAVE to get it! --LordGeovanni- (Talk To Me) *Kupo* 22:39, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

And oh yes, finally, that's answer to my question, my friend is going to cry because Nova Dragon still resolved though. --FredCat 22:50, February 26, 2011 (UTC)