The proxies are paper sheets you print youself for your proxy purposes only! Early Access for the sheets are for my Patreons! They are not for sale obviously because they are free! They will be free for everyone on discord, when I post a video with them, again it's free! Lyrilusc, Flundereeze(Patreon ready), and Xiangjian (almost ready) I guess join my discord and stay tuned to the announcement. If you want them early, check out the Patreon. Tombox.
The compulsory had a legal target however it targeted the dragoon, which is the illegal part, the card would be set back face down and game state would reverse to before the compulsory activated, and the player would recieve a PE Minor
Exactly I agree with you what I thought is I thought that you already declare Target which was Dragoon which cannot be targeted I don't think that's reversible but if you had a car to negate Dragoon like for example a countertop or a car that doesn't Target to negate then you can bounce the Dragoon.
Well, that Compulse example sounds similar to when a player puts 2 monsters to the grave to perform a link summon of let's say a Link 4 but then you see that it is illegal (e.g. Borrelsword). As you already commited to the summon you have to summon a different Link Monster if you can. At least that is what I have been told always. Is that also wrong. Can I leave my Link materials on board in this case?
@@dtfreak2276 If you removed them and summoned an illegal target you will get a warning and keep the materials. If you haven't summoned the monster yet though, you've committed to a Link summon with those materials even if you realize halfway through. If you purposely summon an obviously incorrect card so you can take it back, that's cheating and you'll prob get DQd/banned
The problem is in a simulator compulsory can't be reversed its going to be interesting these types of rulings when Master Duel comes out cause in this example stardust would be back in the extra deck as its the only legal target
People really just need to understand that clicking activate at every point isn't going to abstain them from reading cards and understanding game states
You do not force an illegal action to be turned into a legal action. This unfortunately happens so much though. I've even seen the compulse player realize that REDD can't be targeted, so they choose a new legal target WITHOUT being asked by their opponent. Sadge
I been saying this for 2 years now. It's really dumb when I see other judges rule it the wrong way. They force activations when they shouldn't by changing targets.. It should be PE minor. Misplay and making an illegal activation are completely different. People try to force it and it tilts me. People just don't know that head judge would rule it other ways so they take floor judges who don't know this ruling the normal ruling
I’m fine with winning on a technicality. It’s just that sharking isn’t that. Sharking is when you attempt to force your opponent to comply with a nonexistent rule or policy for the purpose of gaining an advantage. And that’s not okay.
@@cephalosjr.1835 not always, sharking can be pointing out legit rule technicalities but missing the intention of a play. For example, someone had an end phase effect or a standbye effect and let the timing miss by seconds. Then realize immediately before another move happens, then the shark says something like, "oh well you missed your timing, should've declared that 5 seconds ago because its a new phase now." Like yea, technically the effect was forgotten and missed timing, but if its locals or dueling book then give the person a little room for error. Now if multiple things happen and there's a whole new game state then u can't ask to go back, but "missing" the timing by a few seconds is bs and I've been sharked like that atleast a half dozen times over the past year. Its not healthy for new players/ less competitive formats.
@@ScottieDo "For example, someone had an end phase effect or a standbye effect and let the timing miss by seconds." - Depends on the scenario. For example, on the end phase effect. Did you pass prio to your opponent and let him start his turn? if yes, is too late. If No, then you should be able to resolve the effect. Now for the "stand by" if your opponent declare phases and you said ok to go to M1 it's on you. "Then realize immediately before another move happens, then the shark says something like, "oh well you missed your timing, should've declared that 5 seconds ago because its a new phase now." - The shark is wrong. He is only "right" if you had multiple chains going and just resolve one of the multiple or you resolve a chain and played another card or set a card. "Like yea, technically the effect was forgotten and missed timing, but if its locals or dueling book then give the person a little room for error. " -- it's not like technically..... It's more like, yes, that's how the game works. Personally I HATE when people say, "oh... its "LOCALS"" as an excuse to let you do whatever you want. Like no... I came to play, practice, and try to win OTS packs. It's nothing personal but that's how I choose to spend my time, gas, and money. I'm probably overly reading into things, but I'm getting the impression your the guy who misplays a lot and ask for redo. " Now if multiple things happen and there's a whole new game state then u can't ask to go back." --Yep. So forgetting an End phase effect or Stand by effect and passing prio to opponent shouldn't be a big deal either.... "but "missing" the timing by a few seconds is bs and I've been sharked like that atleast a half dozen times over the past year. " - You seem to get a lot of mileage on the word "seconds" can it be your forgetting to declare effects? My Hypothesis was correct. You are the guy who comes into locals and doesn't know how to pilot their own deck. You are probably slow playing and reading all your cards during your combo and now your opponent needs to read all your cards to make sure you are doing everything right. So now "we/I" have to learn your deck with you X rogue deck. "Its not healthy for new players/ less competitive formats." - You have a point here. It's not always healthy but that's because its a tournament. Personally if you ask me for help before or after the tournament, I'm more than happy to try and help as much as possible. But there is always a time and place for this. "less competitive formats" I don't understand this. At my locals 9/10 players are playing tier 1/0 decks of the format.
Another way to avoid a similar problem to that is to ask your opponent if you can read their card effect. Sometimes taking those extra few seconds changes your strategy for a turn to your benefit and avoids confusion.
I always do that, and I make sure to read my cards for the people I am playing so they know when to properly chain their interactions. I would rather lose fairly then win by cheating.
@@Th3og0ny Even longtime players don't know every card, I have played the game since I was 13 (I am 32 now) and I still see cards show up I have never seen before. Or cards I haven't seen in so long I don't remember what they do.
The correct ruling here is to review the gamestate prior to the compulsory, calling a judge explaining the situation and the judge most likely will give to the controller of stardust dragon a PE Minor warning for illegal activation and the compulsory will be set.
I'm actually so tilted by this video. Please Tombox tell judges to do better. This situation happened to me where my opponent activates Zombie World, and normal summons banshee, sets a back row and passes. Pass it back to me and in standby I attempt to target Zombie World with Cosmic Cyclone, but I honestly did not know banshee protects ZW from targeting. We get a judge and the judge AND head judge sides with him stating that I have to eat the L and target his trash Super Poly that I was going to play through regardless. Like 7 turns pass and the head judge comes back, freezes play, and admits fault and says at this point it is an accepted game state. I was so furious, he eventually goes on to win cause I had two cosmics, had to waste one on super poly, so I was outing both Zombie Worlds after I attacked over this Banshee, but I lose cause ZW is insane against Dragon link. And this was at an extravaganza side event.
@@MSTTV Sorry lol, I remember complaining about it to friends for at least a month cause idk how judges to this day still incorrectly rule illegal targeting of any card in particular.
@@vanityfiend9922 Kinda hard to do on Remote duels. And people like to do this thing called cheating and not tell you everything a card does. Only when its valuable to them
yeah but soul charge is a bit different. IO pays for cost, so if you have 600 lp, you cant pay cost, and io is destroyed. Soul charge pays as part of the effect, and you can pay 3k even if you have 2k.
I watch your videos all the time and I am STILL learning. I appreciate your knowledge and would love to see more lesson lecture videos from you, keep up the awesome work. Thanks again.
Player B is right. The activation is not illegal if its condition is being met. There is one target for compulsory device, its activation is not illegal. The chosen target is illegal. SO after activating compulsory device, its controller has to resolve it if he can. Tomboy says, that the activation is not legal because the player who activated the card didn't know that the target he was going to choose was an illegal target? That's not really logical. The player has to read cards and has to keep up with the game he is playing. If he makes mistakes, it's on him. You can't change technicality of game-ruling because a player is taking a fucking nap during the duel. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Scenario: Player has 1 monster (targetable with effects), 1 set card (compulsory); opponent has 1 monster (targetable with effects), 1 set card (forbidden dress): What would happen if a player activated compulsory device and he is (in his mind) going to aim the opponents monster, but the opponent activated forbidden dress as chainlink 2 (after compulsory activation) and chooses his monster. Now after the resolve of forbidden dress, the opponents monster can't be targeted by card effects. Compulsory is activated and the player has to choose a legal target. The only legal target is his own monster, so he has to target his monster. How is the logic behind this procedure different than the one where he activates compulsory and fails to recognize the open gamestate he is currently in where he obviously cant choose the target he was going to go for with compulsory? Imagine a player makes the same "Oh, I was actually going for this..." for cards like Infinite Impermanence. Unless Konami himself explains the rules for this specific interaction and tells me I'm wrong, there isn't anything wrong with what I've explained. Otherwise Ygopro is wrong, too.
If a player makes a big mistake like that and loses the round or the match, it's on them. Otherwise it's not fair to players who play correctly and focused.
So simulators and official games are all completely wrong about this, too? I want some kind of official legal reference from Konami. Not some explanation from any ygo judges without any sources from Konami.
A player made an Illegal action, gets the appropriate penalty (PE - Minor) and the game reverts to the last legal gamestate, which normally is right before the player activated the card with an illegal target. This is how the tournament policy lays it out. Also, your example with cl1 compulse cl2 dress does not work, as by the time dress resolved and made the monster untargetable, it had already become the target of compulse, as cards target upon activation. Again, the player who messed up gets appropriately reprimanded, and if they continue to make illegal activations, they will get the penalty upgraded.
Forbidden Dress is a bad example, because the monster was targeted during the chain. Even if Dress resolves, logically the Compulse will still bounce the targeted monster. Still, i would love to read that ruling about "Illegal Activation" (can't find anything on the database), since i'm still not convinced about returning the play when there's a legal target on the field 😅
You're absolutely right man, another misconception players make is not reading the cards as to what they really do. I mean the only other thing is your opponent can do is not letting you read the card which is when you call the judge.
@@roarbahamut9866 it's not againts the rules as commiting to a illegal action isn't something that's inside the rulebook. Your opponent saying you have to target your own monster is sharking because you do not have to resolve effect in said situation if you do not *want* to, not because you *can't*
I question the second ruling Back when archefiend were implemented, they were ruled in the TCG that if you had 500, the archfiend dies (these are mandatory), while in the OCG, it always killed you When was this changed?
I initially thought the wrong thing too, but it was mostly cause of the nekroz ritual spell vs lancea where you must resolve if possible in your hand. I know the difference now though.
A different question about targeting. So let's say I would use a super polymerization on my opponents monster, one dark and the other would be Red Eyes Dark Dragoon, dragoon says it cannot be targeted but you aren't targeting it, can I use for a super poly material.
And in auto sims, this is why you pick that legal target. In manual, they would just take back that move and if the opponent enforces the rule, they will be called "sharks" for it. It's one of the main reasons why people play manual. Master Duel will be the exact same way.
How does this work when activating ROTA to search from deck or a ritual spell/ fusion spell? If they remove the thing you were planning to fusion with, but can still perform a fusion summon, do you have to?
I'm not a judge, but the way I was taught was that the activation is still legal, so you must resolve as much of the effect as you can. Example: Player 1 summons Aleister into Almaraj/Security Gardna and activates Invocation. Player 2 chains D.D. Crow targeting Aleister. Chain resolves, Aleister is banished and then Invocation's effect happens. Because you no longer have an Aleister on field or in GY, you have to summon a fusion with materials in hand, and if you no longer have legal materials Invocation resolves without effect. I believe the reason why this works when the Compulsory example doesn't is that the Compuls was illegally activated (targeting an untargetable monster), while the Invocation WAS legally activated (you had the Aleister and Sec Gardna to go into Mechaba on activation). If I'm wrong then I'll gladly eat D.D. Crow, because I'd rather look like an idiot than a cheat. But that's what I was taught and the way my area plays, which is relevant with how much Shaddoll Invoked Dogmatika there is.
I've seen so many ppl try to use cards like ice dragons prison when my GY is empty. I just tell them to put it face down again because its unable to be activated at this time
As for the compulse/cannot be targeted monsters. What if you have another target on your opponent's field, should you target another monster mandatory instead?
In any and every situation, you never force an illegal activation into a legal activation, even if it would be possible. You should always return to the most recent legal gamestate, which should be prior to the card being activated
No. As soon as an illegal target is declared on activation, the entire activation is illegal. So the card should be set back face-down and a PE-minor warning should be given by a judge. After the judge call, then player A would be allowed to activate Compulse and target a legal target if they wished.
@@paulsaints1597 Technically yes, return to legal gamestate, but as thk573 said, there should be a judge involved in most cases to properly apply penalties, since a PE - minor has occurred
RULING QUESTION: My oponent activates a monster effect while I have "Reptilliane Recoil" on the field and they have a face up monster with 0 Atk. Can I chain the effect of "Reptilianne Recoil" to their activation or does "Reptilianne Recoil" start a new chain afterwards. In ygopro it starts a new chain but that feels weird.
Here is a question for you, this happened to me a while back. I wanted to link my reprodocus and a tengu into summon sorceress. I however forgot to declare reprodocus's effect at the time, so summon sorceress was an invalid target. My opponent claimed I had to link into a different link 3 since I already declared the link summon and actually prevented me from performing an FTK. Does this fall under the same ruling?
This falls under the same ruling. The link summon was illegal. The game will not force an illegal move to become legal. Go back to before u link summon. Take a PE-minor for illegal summon. Revert game state to before the link 3 summon.
If you use shaddoll schism by banishing a light non shaddoll and a shaddoll dark... then you summon winda. Do you go back? Or you make your opponent summon construct
Am I correct in the ruling that if I use Altergeist Marionetter to target something in the grave and SS it and target what I will send to the grave on the field, if my opponent DD Crow/removes my graveyard target, I still have to send from the field to grave to resolve as much as possible, right?
So what if my opponent activated prosperity at some point and then later tries to use TTT to draw (prosperity doesn’t allow drawing) Does he need to use a different effect (take or shuffle back a card) Or can he just take the card back?
The effect TTT activates is declared alongside the initial activation. Illegally activating it means you rewind to before then. It becomes a bigger issue if they actually end up drawing cards by it in that scenario.
He puts the card back IF you as the opponent can identify which cards he drew and returns them. And it will go back to the open game state before he activated it.
This reminds me of back when I was playing lunalight and everyone tried to use hand traps on chick when it sent for cost. People thought they would force them to activate but I have yet to resolve cost for chick so you aren’t even at the point for you to imperm. I mean free information is nice but then there’s just being a poor sport
How do you distinguish this from a situation where someone attempts a perfectly legal play that simply doesn’t have the result that he/she intended? I.E., you summon Dragoon and the opponent activates Torrential Tribute but you remind them Dragoon can’t be destroyed by card effects. Surely the Torrential user can’t then choose not to activate Torrential, can they?
I think this would be slightly different. If it’s a “cannot be targeted” then that causes illegal actions. Where as cannot be destroyed it’s still legal to activate, Dragoon simply would not be destroyed. At least that’s my take on it as a very casual player haha. If I’m wrong feel free to correct me
What about for fusion summoning or linking? Like let's say you activate invocation with the intent to summon invoked mekaba and you had aleister, a valid light to use, and maybe a shaddoll beast in hand. You then find out that you have no mekaba in your extra deck but you have a shadoll construct, are you then forced to make construct? Or you link into some monster but you didn't meet the right requirements (ex. requires 2 fire monsters and you used a non-fire) are you then forced to link into something that can be made with the fire and the non-fire
Link monsters, you back if you don't have a valid summon because it's a summon that doesn't start a chain. It gets reverted. Fusion summon on the other hand... If the fusion card successfully resolves. Even when you don't have the intended monster, you must resolve it as nothing illegal about the play and you resolve as much as possible when a card successfully activate and resolves. Same for ritual summons.
I have a ruling question if player A has 1000 LP left and activates cosmic cyclone and targets player B set card will player A lose or is this illegal cuz he can’t activate when he has only 1000 LP left
Activation is successful and Player A loses. If you are able to fulfil the cost, even if it would kill you, it successfully activates. But if Player A even had 1LP less than 1000 cosmic cyclone's activation would be illegal and it would return to the zone it was activated from, player that attempted activation receives PE Minor, play resumes.
I have a question not in regards to this particular video: if I use abyss dweller when dueling prank kids, if the links/fusions tribute themselves to either add or special summon from grave, are the prank kids link/fusion effects activating from grave? The text DOES say (quick effect) tribute... thanks in advance :)
No, the effect activates and resolves on field. Abyss Dweller has no hold over the "tribute; do things" effects. Nor would it impede Meowmeow-mu's cost changing effect of banishing itself from grave I believe.
Does this also apply with activation of card effects? IE someone is choosing to use a true draco spell's popping backrow effect but if none of my cards are targetable do they get to unactivate that effect?
So if targeting is the cost, and I make an illegal target then we reset the game-state to where the card was facedown. Does that change if the target is part of the effect? Am i completely wrong?
@@MSTTV all equip cards have to target, right? What about something like if I wanted to equip untied we stand to my dragoon and didn’t know. Would the game state reset or is that different?
can Herald of ultimateness negate the effect of a field spelled set the previous turn for example (i’m not sure of field spell name but it’s used with numeron) the effect was you can send an spell card from deck to grave this card copy’s the effect of said spell card.. is it possible to begat this by using ultimateness?
If the Fieldspell was SET, and they try to activate the card (flipping it face up), during that activation of the spell card, herald can negate it. IF the Field spell was already face up then No herald of ultimateness Cannot negate it.
@@MSTTV how about the effect to special summon… so the field spelled was face up it sent “Numeron Calling” to the grave to copy its effects i can’t negate that based on your reply but can i negate the special summon or is it all considered one effect?
What happens in the scenario: Player 1: *activates CED* Player 2: "Sure, your only target is Stardust" Since Player 1 hasn't declared the target yet, does the scenario change?
Wouldn't it be like: Player 1: No, I target your Dragoon Player 2: It can't be target Therefore the activation of compulsory is ilegal since the target is ilegal, so we came back to this ruling
In that Player 2 would probably receive some manner of warning as well, I'd imagine since they're interfering with activation. Possibly a rule sharking related warning, but I don't know about exact punishment enactment.
You can't ever expect people to follow rules correctly, especially when the head judges themselves are completely stupid. Don't blame the players, blame the head judges and their lack of proper training.
Chances are that the video games that use the actual card game rules using ocg ruling & things like this happen where people accidentally activate a card like that.
I'd have said so, as the Nordic gods in the GY are technically considered different units to the one's whose effects were negated, and thus at proper timing their effects activate.
Damn haha this is one of the things I've just assumed was a part of the game, and now I'm an official Judge, but thankfully I know now and will be able to avoid this kind of situation
If there is a legal target then of course you have to target the legal target (if dragoon cannot be targeted then you cannot target it in the first place to do an illegal action), its just like when you d.d. crow aleister when the opponent activates invocation, if they have legal targets in their hand they can fuse they have to do so
It is not the same. U have to differentiate activation vs resolution. If u disrupt a card during before resolution through chaining that's a good counter play. And you still try to resolve as much as you can. Nothing was illegal during activation Targeting is a part of activation, if an improper target was attempted the entire activation is illegal. I activate cosmic cyclone target zombie world, but I didn't see the banshee preventing targeting. It's illegal. Game state reverted. It never forces to make the play legal. Even if there was a set card still goes back to before it was activated.
@@MSTTV I get what your saying, i just feel like if a card cannot be targeted then it should not be able to be chosen as a target in the first place therefore illegal activations should not be possible. Also we both know there could be some scummy play where someone regrets activating something so they just target something illegal therefor forcing it to be reset.
The whole "forcing" thing is kinda weird. Like, nobody forces you to flip Compulsory while not reading REDD. We always treat the game as a program or an application with a previously set code (or rules). The game doesn't recognize your intent to target Dragoon when Compulsory is flipped face-up, for all it cares you might be having some galaxy-brain play in your head by bouncing your own Stardust. So the moment you flip Compulsory face-up, the game recognizes there's a valid target, it allows the play to continue and considers this a checkpoint. You target Dragoon, it's invalid, then shouldn't the game return to the last checkpoint i.e. when you just flip the card face-up but before picking a target?
targeting is the cost, or for easier understanding, part of the the activation, as has been said by vyax ultima, if the target is illegal then the activation is illegal, so you return to the most recent gamestate which is re-setting the CED, a judge should be called, you take a pe minor and continue the game as normal
Would it be considered an illegal activation for Evenly Matched if I activated it from my hand on my opponent's turn and controlled no cards on the field?
Assuming they controlled any cards at all. No, it's not an illegal activation. As Evenly Matched can activate at the end of THE battle phase, not just your own.
@@Kabutroidica Well, damn I was cheated then. I activated it from my hand while I controlled no cards, so I met the activation requirement, but the guy was adamant that the card had to be set first if I wanted to activate it on his turn.
@@timestarmagician8654 That would be true were it a Quick play spell. But for a trap card that can activate from the hand, if the conditions are met it can drop from the hand. Think infinite impermanence.
@@Kabutroidica Alright, thanks. I'll be sure to remember that the next time some one tries to pull that on me. I definitely met the activation requirements and should have been able to activate it from hand on his turn.
Why didn't they read good question for app players. Dragoon was an easy example for people to follow. How about zombie world and necroworld banshee And cosmic cyclone?. Some game states are more complex and have multiple things causes things to be untargetable. Yes players should read but if they did judges wouldn't be needed.
I think it was stated somewhere that Konami wants to use Master Duel for some official tournaments? Who wants to bet that Master Duel in this situation would force you to bounce your own card?
Master duel would force you, due to the limitation of programming and 0 penalties for Procedural error. U are to believe every play is made and committed. If there is something you cannot target, you won't even be able to select it. Any simulator would force you because it believes everything was intentional. You accidentally used something? There are no accidents.
There is no penalty for Procedural error, yes. However i don't see any limitation of programming that would make it impossible for a player to take back something when they realize that what they wanted to do isn't possible. In your example a simulator could ask what you want to target before flipping up Compulsory Evacuation Device and allow the player to still cancel the action from there. The "select target" step would effectively double as a "check legal targets" function and it would be done before the activation is shown to the other player. I don't think that would break anything. Maybe there's something I'm not seeing, but this would avoid these unpleasent gotcha moments.
THIS HAPPENED TO ME YESTERDAY, thanfuly, there was a judge online to give me a pe warning and tell the other dude he was full of shit. I used idp targeting a drytron gamma in gy and they said i had to target ghost belle -_-
Got it wrong cause in every simulator as u cannot take a punishment for illegal activation the games consider that u knew your only legal target would be stardust and force the resolution of the card in the only legal target
This is probably why simulators need to have you select targets prior to the card turning right side up, therefore, players can back out of actions that would be disadvantageous to them rather than being "forced" to bounce your own cards. And in doing so actually hold better to the game IRL by not punishing them for inattentiveness that we've all suffered.
Before you make your move read the cards. IMO Player A should Target Stardust or compluse Fizzles. To activate any card you need to have the condition meant before you can activate it. Stardust was legal and should be the target.
This happened to my Friend who played true draco vs Spyral. Opponent forced him to destroy his own monster because of his field spell protection. Knew how it was ruled at the time but had my own match to win so I didn't say anything. 🤣
If you can’t target dragoon. The effect can’t activate Because your not targeting that monster. It’s like playing gama on dragoon when it’s your opponents turn.
Ok question player a normal summon a monster that has a search on summon and uses effect . Player b chains artifact sanctum then uses ash blossom. Wouldn't they neglect their own card ?. Player a was wanting to negate the monster and summon a artifact monster from deck but they chained there cards wrong. It was judged that they could take back there plays can re do them where they ash first then used artifact Sanctum. I still think this is wrong
This is a case of improper chains. Judges should not be repairing player chains to resolve most optimally because nothing illegal occured. However that is also a technicality. Since chains are something all players must learn and more or less perfect in competitive play. At a local setting and for a new player learning chain links, I can see why it happened but at a higher tier event, that shouldn't happen in my personal opinion.
3:03 IF it was a illegal target you do be right, but this is not the case here, Dragoon can simply not be targetet at all, therefore a card that targets monsters on the field on activation has to go with the only other target left, wich is stardust dragon, especally because it reads Monster "ON FIELD" not opponent field, you can also target lava golem after he has been summond to your board, this is a really old ruling and makes complete sense just by reading the card text. stardust will be targetet and then return to the extra deck, i don t care what twitter says, on any ycs and any tournament i ever visit it was and is still ruled like that, OCG and games publish by konami rule it like that too. this video is right in the way it describes the rulings, but the exampel is simply wrong.
If the teliportation can't activate then it would re set. Of there's no activation then no effect will happen. Its either a gentlemans word it resets or if there too bitchy ot goes to the gy. And this is why in the anime they read out every card. We should do the same
The same way you're not reading that the target is part of activation, if we make a rule here that lets someone change target because the origional target was illigal it could create issues. Eg, if someone would change forbidden lance to it to protect it. Well 2 bad due to the rule ur trying to inforce targeting is now part of the effect. and u just forced a resoluton
I see it more as dragoon never being an option, there is a legal target wich is stardust. Being able to "target" dragoon would make no sense, it's like me having a set impermanence flip it without saying anything and then set it back again, like what was the point?
@@headbean7560 Well if you are playing at locals or with friends sure you let it pass but if you are in a big tournament then you should start reading xD
Just saying but in the games if you activate a card and there is a legal target in the field you have to choose the legal target. From what I understood it comes from the "comit to an action" rule.
Returning to the game state where it goes back down wouldnt be right if they activated the card regardless if one of the targets can’t be targeted would be the same as committing to an activation of a spell on an Imperm column you can change it to another spot lol Or do you go back to the game state before the activation?? 🧐
Very doubtful, as this situation only occurs if you do not understand your opponent’s card(s). There is no way for a simulator to know if you do or don’t understand your opponent’s cards.
in online simulators you are forced to bounce back your stardust, I have never been to a real tournament so I don't know if you are allowed takesies backsies, or what a pe-minor is but in an online space you just lose your stardust edit: wow, ok, so if you make an illegal move, you aren't allowed to actually resolve it, I wouldn't have guessed like with flipping compulse on an empty board, I guess you just have to set it face down I hope the new konami yuigioh simulator has stuff like, when you click a card to activate it, it goes through how it will activate before actually activating, so if there are only bad targets then you will realise before it's too late
Remember there are limitation behind programming. In the digital world, you can't prove intend AND you can program away Procedural Errors. remember there are no judges to prevent human error but in programming you can lock away any sort of human error by not allowing it as an option.
I think that because some people play using ygo pro or link evolution and you can’t go back on activating card like compulse in this scenario people just though the same logic sets in when they are playing at locals idk but chets are at it again!
Let's just read the cards that we play with...I promise it's not that bad( when I say read I mean actually read, not pick up your opponents cards and glare angrily at it and then set it back down)
The proxies are paper sheets you print youself for your proxy purposes only!
Early Access for the sheets are for my Patreons! They are not for sale obviously because they are free!
They will be free for everyone on discord, when I post a video with them, again it's free!
Lyrilusc, Flundereeze(Patreon ready), and Xiangjian (almost ready)
I guess join my discord and stay tuned to the announcement.
If you want them early, check out the Patreon.
Tombox.
Yousef
Whats your patreon?
The compulsory had a legal target however it targeted the dragoon, which is the illegal part, the card would be set back face down and game state would reverse to before the compulsory activated, and the player would recieve a PE Minor
Exactly I agree with you what I thought is I thought that you already declare Target which was Dragoon which cannot be targeted I don't think that's reversible but if you had a car to negate Dragoon like for example a countertop or a car that doesn't Target to negate then you can bounce the Dragoon.
Well, that Compulse example sounds similar to when a player puts 2 monsters to the grave to perform a link summon of let's say a Link 4 but then you see that it is illegal (e.g. Borrelsword). As you already commited to the summon you have to summon a different Link Monster if you can. At least that is what I have been told always. Is that also wrong. Can I leave my Link materials on board in this case?
@@dtfreak2276 If you removed them and summoned an illegal target you will get a warning and keep the materials. If you haven't summoned the monster yet though, you've committed to a Link summon with those materials even if you realize halfway through. If you purposely summon an obviously incorrect card so you can take it back, that's cheating and you'll prob get DQd/banned
The problem is in a simulator compulsory can't be reversed its going to be interesting these types of rulings when Master Duel comes out cause in this example stardust would be back in the extra deck as its the only legal target
@@grayhunter7945 Yeah Master Duel will need to be fully manual like Duelingbook if it's going to be competitive.
top reason: edopro ruling: when you activate compulse and notice that dragoon is not an option to target and must click stardust or Surrender
this is it for me. also the same for any other sims like Legacy of the Duelist
That's why I dislike automated simulators. Let's see how Master Duels handles scenarios like this.
People really just need to understand that clicking activate at every point isn't going to abstain them from reading cards and understanding game states
Playing on auto simulator is like playing chess, you can't undo once you do movement
@@jofx4051 you mean touch a piece
You do not force an illegal action to be turned into a legal action. This unfortunately happens so much though. I've even seen the compulse player realize that REDD can't be targeted, so they choose a new legal target WITHOUT being asked by their opponent. Sadge
EXACTLY!!! OMG!
I been saying this for 2 years now. It's really dumb when I see other judges rule it the wrong way. They force activations when they shouldn't by changing targets.. It should be PE minor. Misplay and making an illegal activation are completely different. People try to force it and it tilts me. People just don't know that head judge would rule it other ways so they take floor judges who don't know this ruling the normal ruling
Sharking is probably the worst thing about yugioh, winning on a technicality is so dumb especially when the procedural error was 100% accidental
I’m fine with winning on a technicality. It’s just that sharking isn’t that. Sharking is when you attempt to force your opponent to comply with a nonexistent rule or policy for the purpose of gaining an advantage. And that’s not okay.
@@cephalosjr.1835 not always, sharking can be pointing out legit rule technicalities but missing the intention of a play. For example, someone had an end phase effect or a standbye effect and let the timing miss by seconds. Then realize immediately before another move happens, then the shark says something like, "oh well you missed your timing, should've declared that 5 seconds ago because its a new phase now." Like yea, technically the effect was forgotten and missed timing, but if its locals or dueling book then give the person a little room for error. Now if multiple things happen and there's a whole new game state then u can't ask to go back, but "missing" the timing by a few seconds is bs and I've been sharked like that atleast a half dozen times over the past year. Its not healthy for new players/ less competitive formats.
@@ScottieDo "For example, someone had an end phase effect or a standbye effect and let the timing miss by seconds."
- Depends on the scenario. For example, on the end phase effect. Did you pass prio to your opponent and let him start his turn? if yes, is too late. If No, then you should be able to resolve the effect. Now for the "stand by" if your opponent declare phases and you said ok to go to M1 it's on you.
"Then realize immediately before another move happens, then the shark says something like, "oh well you missed your timing, should've declared that 5 seconds ago because its a new phase now."
- The shark is wrong. He is only "right" if you had multiple chains going and just resolve one of the multiple or you resolve a chain and played another card or set a card.
"Like yea, technically the effect was forgotten and missed timing, but if its locals or dueling book then give the person a little room for error. "
-- it's not like technically..... It's more like, yes, that's how the game works. Personally I HATE when people say, "oh... its "LOCALS"" as an excuse to let you do whatever you want. Like no... I came to play, practice, and try to win OTS packs. It's nothing personal but that's how I choose to spend my time, gas, and money. I'm probably overly reading into things, but I'm getting the impression your the guy who misplays a lot and ask for redo.
" Now if multiple things happen and there's a whole new game state then u can't ask to go back."
--Yep. So forgetting an End phase effect or Stand by effect and passing prio to opponent shouldn't be a big deal either....
"but "missing" the timing by a few seconds is bs and I've been sharked like that atleast a half dozen times over the past year. "
- You seem to get a lot of mileage on the word "seconds" can it be your forgetting to declare effects? My Hypothesis was correct. You are the guy who comes into locals and doesn't know how to pilot their own deck. You are probably slow playing and reading all your cards during your combo and now your opponent needs to read all your cards to make sure you are doing everything right. So now "we/I" have to learn your deck with you X rogue deck.
"Its not healthy for new players/ less competitive formats."
- You have a point here. It's not always healthy but that's because its a tournament. Personally if you ask me for help before or after the tournament, I'm more than happy to try and help as much as possible. But there is always a time and place for this.
"less competitive formats"
I don't understand this. At my locals 9/10 players are playing tier 1/0 decks of the format.
Okay I need to know where you got 70% from
Okay he literally did a poll never mind
@@Farfa Pepega comment bro 🤓
Yah I polled it. You would NEVeR believe what happened next!? (Loads a big page of ads)
Another way to avoid a similar problem to that is to ask your opponent if you can read their card effect. Sometimes taking those extra few seconds changes your strategy for a turn to your benefit and avoids confusion.
Pffffft… NEEERRRD!!!
I always do that, and I make sure to read my cards for the people I am playing so they know when to properly chain their interactions. I would rather lose fairly then win by cheating.
@@HumanoidCableDreads agreed. Thats cool you do that. Gives newer/returning players a chance to have a comeback opportunity.
@@HumanoidCableDreads also keeps the game fun
@@Th3og0ny Even longtime players don't know every card, I have played the game since I was 13 (I am 32 now) and I still see cards show up I have never seen before. Or cards I haven't seen in so long I don't remember what they do.
Tombox: “Be nicer to newer players that might not know the rulings”
Also tombox: “yea IO kill you now”
The correct ruling here is to review the gamestate prior to the compulsory, calling a judge explaining the situation and the judge most likely will give to the controller of stardust dragon a PE Minor warning for illegal activation and the compulsory will be set.
Well, that's not a ruling, it's just good advice.
he needs to re-set it. as judges we don't turn illegal plays into legal ones
I'm actually so tilted by this video. Please Tombox tell judges to do better. This situation happened to me where my opponent activates Zombie World, and normal summons banshee, sets a back row and passes. Pass it back to me and in standby I attempt to target Zombie World with Cosmic Cyclone, but I honestly did not know banshee protects ZW from targeting. We get a judge and the judge AND head judge sides with him stating that I have to eat the L and target his trash Super Poly that I was going to play through regardless. Like 7 turns pass and the head judge comes back, freezes play, and admits fault and says at this point it is an accepted game state. I was so furious, he eventually goes on to win cause I had two cosmics, had to waste one on super poly, so I was outing both Zombie Worlds after I attacked over this Banshee, but I lose cause ZW is insane against Dragon link. And this was at an extravaganza side event.
This is a LOOOOOOOONGEST mistake in yugioh history!@
@@MSTTV Sorry lol, I remember complaining about it to friends for at least a month cause idk how judges to this day still incorrectly rule illegal targeting of any card in particular.
Not knowing the law dont excuse you from not following it, you can always read the card.
@@vanityfiend9922 Kinda hard to do on Remote duels. And people like to do this thing called cheating and not tell you everything a card does. Only when its valuable to them
Love these types of videos , you should do more card ruling videos. Would definitely help the yugioh community
"Wow wow wow , you touch the piece you must commit to the play"
Thanks for the great ruleing information im a returning player and I haven't been up to date Since Dino Rabbits was a thing 😅
I’ve done the whole “pay life points” mistake a while back when Soul Charge was legal, paid until I died. Not fun
yeah but soul charge is a bit different. IO pays for cost, so if you have 600 lp, you cant pay cost, and io is destroyed. Soul charge pays as part of the effect, and you can pay 3k even if you have 2k.
I remember the 2nd ruling from a Wheel of YuGiOh video. Sam activated Snatch Steal with 800LP left, took Farfa's monster and on resolution, lost.
I think you mean premature burial. Snatch steal give opponent lp
The one thing that pisses me off when people rule shark is that they dont even play any of Shark's cards.
I watch your videos all the time and I am STILL learning. I appreciate your knowledge and would love to see more lesson lecture videos from you, keep up the awesome work. Thanks again.
I had a locals judge rule that an illegal activation was legal and I lost a match because of it.
Player B is right.
The activation is not illegal if its condition is being met. There is one target for compulsory device, its activation is not illegal. The chosen target is illegal. SO after activating compulsory device, its controller has to resolve it if he can.
Tomboy says, that the activation is not legal because the player who activated the card didn't know that the target he was going to choose was an illegal target? That's not really logical. The player has to read cards and has to keep up with the game he is playing. If he makes mistakes, it's on him. You can't change technicality of game-ruling because a player is taking a fucking nap during the duel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenario: Player has 1 monster (targetable with effects), 1 set card (compulsory); opponent has 1 monster (targetable with effects), 1 set card (forbidden dress):
What would happen if a player activated compulsory device and he is (in his mind) going to aim the opponents monster, but the opponent activated forbidden dress as chainlink 2 (after compulsory activation) and chooses his monster. Now after the resolve of forbidden dress, the opponents monster can't be targeted by card effects. Compulsory is activated and the player has to choose a legal target. The only legal target is his own monster, so he has to target his monster.
How is the logic behind this procedure different than the one where he activates compulsory and fails to recognize the open gamestate he is currently in where he obviously cant choose the target he was going to go for with compulsory?
Imagine a player makes the same "Oh, I was actually going for this..." for cards like Infinite Impermanence.
Unless Konami himself explains the rules for this specific interaction and tells me I'm wrong, there isn't anything wrong with what I've explained.
Otherwise Ygopro is wrong, too.
If a player makes a big mistake like that and loses the round or the match, it's on them. Otherwise it's not fair to players who play correctly and focused.
So simulators and official games are all completely wrong about this, too? I want some kind of official legal reference from Konami. Not some explanation from any ygo judges without any sources from Konami.
A player made an Illegal action, gets the appropriate penalty (PE - Minor) and the game reverts to the last legal gamestate, which normally is right before the player activated the card with an illegal target. This is how the tournament policy lays it out.
Also, your example with cl1 compulse cl2 dress does not work, as by the time dress resolved and made the monster untargetable, it had already become the target of compulse, as cards target upon activation.
Again, the player who messed up gets appropriately reprimanded, and if they continue to make illegal activations, they will get the penalty upgraded.
btw "targeting occurs during activation" doesn't contradict anything if there is a legal target and an illegal target on the field.
Forbidden Dress is a bad example, because the monster was targeted during the chain. Even if Dress resolves, logically the Compulse will still bounce the targeted monster.
Still, i would love to read that ruling about "Illegal Activation" (can't find anything on the database), since i'm still not convinced about returning the play when there's a legal target on the field 😅
This is why I ask my opponent what their card does or I look it up on my phone.
You're absolutely right man, another misconception players make is not reading the cards as to what they really do. I mean the only other thing is your opponent can do is not letting you read the card which is when you call the judge.
It's because the video games and duel simulators with automated processes force card resolution. So players think that's how IRL works too.
Im pretty sure that if your opponent forced you to target your own stardust dragon in that situation that would be considered rule sharking.
Its not even rule sharking, he wants to force you to do something that is AGAINST the actual ruling. But in the end, the judge makes the call.
@@roarbahamut9866 it's not againts the rules as commiting to a illegal action isn't something that's inside the rulebook. Your opponent saying you have to target your own monster is sharking because you do not have to resolve effect in said situation if you do not *want* to, not because you *can't*
@@roarbahamut9866 Ye - Forcing your opponent to do something against the ruling is ruelsharking.....
I question the second ruling
Back when archefiend were implemented, they were ruled in the TCG that if you had 500, the archfiend dies (these are mandatory), while in the OCG, it always killed you
When was this changed?
I initially thought the wrong thing too, but it was mostly cause of the nekroz ritual spell vs lancea where you must resolve if possible in your hand. I know the difference now though.
A different question about targeting.
So let's say I would use a super polymerization on my opponents monster, one dark and the other would be Red Eyes Dark Dragoon, dragoon says it cannot be targeted but you aren't targeting it, can I use for a super poly material.
you answered yourself bro
the rule is i can't eat an apple, but there's a peanut butter sandwich on the table, can i eat the peanut butter sandwich?
of course you can use dragoon as fusion material
Read the card
And in auto sims, this is why you pick that legal target. In manual, they would just take back that move and if the opponent enforces the rule, they will be called "sharks" for it. It's one of the main reasons why people play manual. Master Duel will be the exact same way.
I've gotten sharked in a similar way at regionals and of course I lost that game.
How does this work when activating ROTA to search from deck or a ritual spell/ fusion spell? If they remove the thing you were planning to fusion with, but can still perform a fusion summon, do you have to?
I'm not a judge, but the way I was taught was that the activation is still legal, so you must resolve as much of the effect as you can.
Example: Player 1 summons Aleister into Almaraj/Security Gardna and activates Invocation. Player 2 chains D.D. Crow targeting Aleister. Chain resolves, Aleister is banished and then Invocation's effect happens. Because you no longer have an Aleister on field or in GY, you have to summon a fusion with materials in hand, and if you no longer have legal materials Invocation resolves without effect.
I believe the reason why this works when the Compulsory example doesn't is that the Compuls was illegally activated (targeting an untargetable monster), while the Invocation WAS legally activated (you had the Aleister and Sec Gardna to go into Mechaba on activation).
If I'm wrong then I'll gladly eat D.D. Crow, because I'd rather look like an idiot than a cheat. But that's what I was taught and the way my area plays, which is relevant with how much Shaddoll Invoked Dogmatika there is.
I've seen so many ppl try to use cards like ice dragons prison when my GY is empty. I just tell them to put it face down again because its unable to be activated at this time
As for the compulse/cannot be targeted monsters. What if you have another target on your opponent's field, should you target another monster mandatory instead?
In any and every situation, you never force an illegal activation into a legal activation, even if it would be possible. You should always return to the most recent legal gamestate, which should be prior to the card being activated
@@michaeldimisa5707 Okay so rule of thumb is if you did an Illegal activation = return to recent game state. Thank you for the info!
No. As soon as an illegal target is declared on activation, the entire activation is illegal. So the card should be set back face-down and a PE-minor warning should be given by a judge. After the judge call, then player A would be allowed to activate Compulse and target a legal target if they wished.
@@paulsaints1597 Technically yes, return to legal gamestate, but as thk573 said, there should be a judge involved in most cases to properly apply penalties, since a PE - minor has occurred
RULING QUESTION: My oponent activates a monster effect while I have "Reptilliane Recoil" on the field and they have a face up monster with 0 Atk. Can I chain the effect of "Reptilianne Recoil" to their activation or does "Reptilianne Recoil" start a new chain afterwards. In ygopro it starts a new chain but that feels weird.
New chain, by the way it reads.
Here is a question for you, this happened to me a while back.
I wanted to link my reprodocus and a tengu into summon sorceress. I however forgot to declare reprodocus's effect at the time, so summon sorceress was an invalid target. My opponent claimed I had to link into a different link 3 since I already declared the link summon and actually prevented me from performing an FTK. Does this fall under the same ruling?
This falls under the same ruling.
The link summon was illegal. The game will not force an illegal move to become legal. Go back to before u link summon.
Take a PE-minor for illegal summon.
Revert game state to before the link 3 summon.
@@MSTTV Thanks for replying! Very helpful.
If you use shaddoll schism by banishing a light non shaddoll and a shaddoll dark... then you summon winda. Do you go back? Or you make your opponent summon construct
5:40 I havent played ygo for like 5 years and i also assumed i had to target stardust because thats what the simulator would tell me to do as well.
Am I correct in the ruling that if I use Altergeist Marionetter to target something in the grave and SS it and target what I will send to the grave on the field, if my opponent DD Crow/removes my graveyard target, I still have to send from the field to grave to resolve as much as possible, right?
Yes u send the card to the gy even if the target gets crowed.
That is due to the and if you do. Conjunction
So what if my opponent activated prosperity at some point and then later tries to use TTT to draw (prosperity doesn’t allow drawing)
Does he need to use a different effect (take or shuffle back a card)
Or can he just take the card back?
The effect TTT activates is declared alongside the initial activation. Illegally activating it means you rewind to before then.
It becomes a bigger issue if they actually end up drawing cards by it in that scenario.
@@VyaxUltima so does he have to use a different effect or can he just take it back?
He puts the card back IF you as the opponent can identify which cards he drew and returns them. And it will go back to the open game state before he activated it.
whats a pe minor? and whats it do?
Tombox what is the interaction ABC dragon buster vs Dark Ruler no more
will abc be able to tag out
This reminds me of back when I was playing lunalight and everyone tried to use hand traps on chick when it sent for cost. People thought they would force them to activate but I have yet to resolve cost for chick so you aren’t even at the point for you to imperm. I mean free information is nice but then there’s just being a poor sport
Your example is way another thing from what this video was tho
How do you distinguish this from a situation where someone attempts a perfectly legal play that simply doesn’t have the result that he/she intended? I.E., you summon Dragoon and the opponent activates Torrential Tribute but you remind them Dragoon can’t be destroyed by card effects. Surely the Torrential user can’t then choose not to activate Torrential, can they?
I think this would be slightly different. If it’s a “cannot be targeted” then that causes illegal actions.
Where as cannot be destroyed it’s still legal to activate, Dragoon simply would not be destroyed.
At least that’s my take on it as a very casual player haha. If I’m wrong feel free to correct me
Would this also apply if i had 2 monsters on the field and send the to the graveyard to summon a link 2 but change my mind and want to overlay them?
Always call a judge. Don't trust your opponent has your best interest at heart.
What happens if u "accidentally" spill a soda on thier deck?
What about for fusion summoning or linking? Like let's say you activate invocation with the intent to summon invoked mekaba and you had aleister, a valid light to use, and maybe a shaddoll beast in hand. You then find out that you have no mekaba in your extra deck but you have a shadoll construct, are you then forced to make construct?
Or you link into some monster but you didn't meet the right requirements (ex. requires 2 fire monsters and you used a non-fire) are you then forced to link into something that can be made with the fire and the non-fire
Link monsters, you back if you don't have a valid summon because it's a summon that doesn't start a chain. It gets reverted.
Fusion summon on the other hand... If the fusion card successfully resolves. Even when you don't have the intended monster, you must resolve it as nothing illegal about the play and you resolve as much as possible when a card successfully activate and resolves.
Same for ritual summons.
I have a ruling question if player A has 1000 LP left and activates cosmic cyclone and targets player B set card will player A lose or is this illegal cuz he can’t activate when he has only 1000 LP left
He dies
Activation is successful and Player A loses. If you are able to fulfil the cost, even if it would kill you, it successfully activates. But if Player A even had 1LP less than 1000 cosmic cyclone's activation would be illegal and it would return to the zone it was activated from, player that attempted activation receives PE Minor, play resumes.
I have a question not in regards to this particular video: if I use abyss dweller when dueling prank kids, if the links/fusions tribute themselves to either add or special summon from grave, are the prank kids link/fusion effects activating from grave? The text DOES say (quick effect) tribute... thanks in advance :)
No, the effect activates and resolves on field. Abyss Dweller has no hold over the "tribute; do things" effects. Nor would it impede Meowmeow-mu's cost changing effect of banishing itself from grave I believe.
Does this also apply with activation of card effects? IE someone is choosing to use a true draco spell's popping backrow effect but if none of my cards are targetable do they get to unactivate that effect?
Yes because it was an illegal activation
So if targeting is the cost, and I make an illegal target then we reset the game-state to where the card was facedown. Does that change if the target is part of the effect? Am i completely wrong?
Targeting never happens outside of the activation to my knowledge.
which is why this is clear cut.
@@MSTTV all equip cards have to target, right? What about something like if I wanted to equip untied we stand to my dragoon and didn’t know. Would the game state reset or is that different?
Lol “Distant coder “ is like saying “ well it works on nexus “ loool
can Herald of ultimateness negate the effect of a field spelled set the previous turn for example (i’m not sure of field spell name but it’s used with numeron) the effect was you can send an spell card from deck to grave this card copy’s the effect of said spell card.. is it possible to begat this by using ultimateness?
No. They didn’t activate the card. I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be allowed because that’s activation of effect and not activation of card
Should check tho I’m not 100% sure
If the Fieldspell was SET, and they try to activate the card (flipping it face up), during that activation of the spell card, herald can negate it. IF the Field spell was already face up then No herald of ultimateness Cannot negate it.
@@MSTTV how about the effect to special summon… so the field spelled was face up it sent “Numeron Calling” to the grave to copy its effects i can’t negate that based on your reply but can i negate the special summon or is it all considered one effect?
What happens in the scenario:
Player 1: *activates CED*
Player 2: "Sure, your only target is Stardust"
Since Player 1 hasn't declared the target yet, does the scenario change?
Wouldn't it be like:
Player 1: No, I target your Dragoon
Player 2: It can't be target
Therefore the activation of compulsory is ilegal since the target is ilegal, so we came back to this ruling
> Player 2: "Sure, your only target is Stardust"
this doesn't matter, player 2 doesn't get to answer before the activation is complete
It should go like
P1 : Acts Comp
P2 : Sure, Target?
P1 : Says Goons
P2 : Says You Can't
That should be how it would go.
In that Player 2 would probably receive some manner of warning as well, I'd imagine since they're interfering with activation. Possibly a rule sharking related warning, but I don't know about exact punishment enactment.
You can't ever expect people to follow rules correctly, especially when the head judges themselves are completely stupid. Don't blame the players, blame the head judges and their lack of proper training.
Great video and ruling knowledge!
Chances are that the video games that use the actual card game rules using ocg ruling & things like this happen where people accidentally activate a card like that.
hi, what are we doing for the super poly case ?
If i negate the nordic gods effects with Dark Ruler No More can they activate there revival effect when i destroy them?
I'd have said so, as the Nordic gods in the GY are technically considered different units to the one's whose effects were negated, and thus at proper timing their effects activate.
@@Kabutroidica im looking for a reply from mst tv
Nice! Just in time for my first locals!
Good luck my dude !
Good luck King and please remember to have fun!
Damn haha this is one of the things I've just assumed was a part of the game, and now I'm an official Judge, but thankfully I know now and will be able to avoid this kind of situation
So, with accidental illegal targeting all legal targets it could have targeted are also illegal?
No thr Activate itself is illegal the moment the target is chosen. Think of it like locking in the target.
If there is a legal target then of course you have to target the legal target (if dragoon cannot be targeted then you cannot target it in the first place to do an illegal action), its just like when you d.d. crow aleister when the opponent activates invocation, if they have legal targets in their hand they can fuse they have to do so
It is not the same.
U have to differentiate activation vs resolution.
If u disrupt a card during before resolution through chaining that's a good counter play. And you still try to resolve as much as you can. Nothing was illegal during activation
Targeting is a part of activation, if an improper target was attempted the entire activation is illegal.
I activate cosmic cyclone target zombie world, but I didn't see the banshee preventing targeting. It's illegal.
Game state reverted. It never forces to make the play legal. Even if there was a set card still goes back to before it was activated.
@@MSTTV I get what your saying, i just feel like if a card cannot be targeted then it should not be able to be chosen as a target in the first place therefore illegal activations should not be possible. Also we both know there could be some scummy play where someone regrets activating something so they just target something illegal therefor forcing it to be reset.
People probably think activating and targeting are separate/sequential.
The whole "forcing" thing is kinda weird. Like, nobody forces you to flip Compulsory while not reading REDD.
We always treat the game as a program or an application with a previously set code (or rules). The game doesn't recognize your intent to target Dragoon when Compulsory is flipped face-up, for all it cares you might be having some galaxy-brain play in your head by bouncing your own Stardust. So the moment you flip Compulsory face-up, the game recognizes there's a valid target, it allows the play to continue and considers this a checkpoint. You target Dragoon, it's invalid, then shouldn't the game return to the last checkpoint i.e. when you just flip the card face-up but before picking a target?
Targeting is part of activating the card - an illegally chosen target means an illegal activation, thus the card is re-Set.
targeting is the cost, or for easier understanding, part of the the activation, as has been said by vyax ultima, if the target is illegal then the activation is illegal, so you return to the most recent gamestate which is re-setting the CED, a judge should be called, you take a pe minor and continue the game as normal
Would it be considered an illegal activation for Evenly Matched if I activated it from my hand on my opponent's turn and controlled no cards on the field?
Assuming they controlled any cards at all. No, it's not an illegal activation. As Evenly Matched can activate at the end of THE battle phase, not just your own.
@@Kabutroidica Well, damn I was cheated then. I activated it from my hand while I controlled no cards, so I met the activation requirement, but the guy was adamant that the card had to be set first if I wanted to activate it on his turn.
@@timestarmagician8654 That would be true were it a Quick play spell. But for a trap card that can activate from the hand, if the conditions are met it can drop from the hand. Think infinite impermanence.
@@Kabutroidica Alright, thanks. I'll be sure to remember that the next time some one tries to pull that on me. I definitely met the activation requirements and should have been able to activate it from hand on his turn.
online is mainly responsible for these rulings dueling nexus forces you into targeting stardust
Hey tomboy how can you get the solsword proxy deck from you?
If you want early access, it's on my Patreon page. If you want public access wait til the video about them come out
Why didn't the player read dragoon its on the field it's public. compulsory can be used on ur monsters so there is a legal target to be activated.
Why didn't they read good question for app players.
Dragoon was an easy example for people to follow.
How about zombie world and necroworld banshee And cosmic cyclone?.
Some game states are more complex and have multiple things causes things to be untargetable.
Yes players should read but if they did judges wouldn't be needed.
@@MSTTV they wouldnt be able to target zombie world and wouldn't be able to activate unless there was a legal target to begin with.
Just remember that in master duel you will be forced to bounce your own stardust since there are no takebacks just like duel links
I think it was stated somewhere that Konami wants to use Master Duel for some official tournaments?
Who wants to bet that Master Duel in this situation would force you to bounce your own card?
Master duel would force you, due to the limitation of programming and 0 penalties for Procedural error.
U are to believe every play is made and committed. If there is something you cannot target, you won't even be able to select it.
Any simulator would force you because it believes everything was intentional. You accidentally used something? There are no accidents.
There is no penalty for Procedural error, yes.
However i don't see any limitation of programming that would make it impossible for a player to take back something when they realize that what they wanted to do isn't possible.
In your example a simulator could ask what you want to target before flipping up Compulsory Evacuation Device and allow the player to still cancel the action from there.
The "select target" step would effectively double as a "check legal targets" function and it would be done before the activation is shown to the other player. I don't think that would break anything.
Maybe there's something I'm not seeing, but this would avoid these unpleasent gotcha moments.
You dont have to send back your Stardust and if your oponent forces you to do it its rulesharking
It’s enforcing proper gamestate not sharing there’s a huge difference
@@volpgod6464 no its rulesharking i learnt that from distant coder
@@volpgod6464
It is rulesharking indeed - Watch the video
THIS HAPPENED TO ME YESTERDAY, thanfuly, there was a judge online to give me a pe warning and tell the other dude he was full of shit. I used idp targeting a drytron gamma in gy and they said i had to target ghost belle -_-
Got it wrong cause in every simulator as u cannot take a punishment for illegal activation the games consider that u knew your only legal target would be stardust and force the resolution of the card in the only legal target
This is probably why simulators need to have you select targets prior to the card turning right side up, therefore, players can back out of actions that would be disadvantageous to them rather than being "forced" to bounce your own cards. And in doing so actually hold better to the game IRL by not punishing them for inattentiveness that we've all suffered.
Pop quiz answer 2: imperial order’s cost will be paid as you have exactly 700. If you had 699 or lower the IO would destroy itself
Before you make your move read the cards. IMO Player A should Target Stardust or compluse Fizzles. To activate any card you need to have the condition meant before you can activate it. Stardust was legal and should be the target.
You absolutley dont need to target your own stardust in this scenario. Take the PE minor and read your cards, but dont fall in to the trap.
I’ve been guilty of forcing activations, I honestly thought that because of simulators
My first time at locals a subterror control player did that to me never went back to that locals
yep I got cheated by this, also thanks for explaining the ruling
Automated duel say hi. Once you activate something you cannot go back to previous state. 😂
wait, someone actually put a proxy in a tournament deck and proceed to play them?
This happened to my Friend who played true draco vs Spyral. Opponent forced him to destroy his own monster because of his field spell protection. Knew how it was ruled at the time but had my own match to win so I didn't say anything. 🤣
If you can’t target dragoon. The effect can’t activate Because your not targeting that monster. It’s like playing gama on dragoon when it’s your opponents turn.
You're assuming Sharks are acting in good faith, which they aren't. That's why they're sharks.
Ok question player a normal summon a monster that has a search on summon and uses effect . Player b chains artifact sanctum then uses ash blossom. Wouldn't they neglect their own card ?. Player a was wanting to negate the monster and summon a artifact monster from deck but they chained there cards wrong. It was judged that they could take back there plays can re do them where they ash first then used artifact Sanctum. I still think this is wrong
This is a case of improper chains.
Judges should not be repairing player chains to resolve most optimally because nothing illegal occured. However that is also a technicality. Since chains are something all players must learn and more or less perfect in competitive play.
At a local setting and for a new player learning chain links, I can see why it happened but at a higher tier event, that shouldn't happen in my personal opinion.
@@MSTTV was at higher tier event. if it would have been a locals wouldnt have matter thats what locals are for to learn
Well that explains why on DB people try to force this every single day.
Who wanted to win THAT badly that they tried to say stardust got popped? Guess I had a good YuGiOh teacher
3:03 IF it was a illegal target you do be right, but this is not the case here, Dragoon can simply not be targetet at all, therefore a card that targets monsters on the field on activation has to go with the only other target left, wich is stardust dragon, especally because it reads Monster "ON FIELD" not opponent field, you can also target lava golem after he has been summond to your board, this is a really old ruling and makes complete sense just by reading the card text. stardust will be targetet and then return to the extra deck, i don t care what twitter says, on any ycs and any tournament i ever visit it was and is still ruled like that, OCG and games publish by konami rule it like that too. this video is right in the way it describes the rulings, but the exampel is simply wrong.
If the teliportation can't activate then it would re set. Of there's no activation then no effect will happen. Its either a gentlemans word it resets or if there too bitchy ot goes to the gy. And this is why in the anime they read out every card. We should do the same
Fuck that… you got duel disk holders…. You’re OG.
I think it would be better if the ruling made it so stardust gets returned, this would encourage people to actually read cards.
The same way you're not reading that the target is part of activation, if we make a rule here that lets someone change target because the origional target was illigal it could create issues. Eg, if someone would change forbidden lance to it to protect it. Well 2 bad due to the rule ur trying to inforce targeting is now part of the effect. and u just forced a resoluton
Its better to acturally do proper proceduree always, because one bad rule, leads to bad logic for other situations
I see it more as dragoon never being an option, there is a legal target wich is stardust. Being able to "target" dragoon would make no sense, it's like me having a set impermanence flip it without saying anything and then set it back again, like what was the point?
Nah it’s overly punishing to newbies, that would be a horrible 1st impression of the game.
@@headbean7560 Well if you are playing at locals or with friends sure you let it pass but if you are in a big tournament then you should start reading xD
Just saying but in the games if you activate a card and there is a legal target in the field you have to choose the legal target.
From what I understood it comes from the "comit to an action" rule.
Returning to the game state where it goes back down wouldnt be right if they activated the card regardless if one of the targets can’t be targeted would be the same as committing to an activation of a spell on an Imperm column you can change it to another spot lol
Or do you go back to the game state before the activation?? 🧐
Do you think they will change the rules with the addition of the new Master Duel game in development?
Very doubtful, as this situation only occurs if you do not understand your opponent’s card(s). There is no way for a simulator to know if you do or don’t understand your opponent’s cards.
the real question is why someone would have a stardust or compulse in the deck in the first place 🤯
in online simulators you are forced to bounce back your stardust, I have never been to a real tournament so I don't know if you are allowed takesies backsies, or what a pe-minor is
but in an online space you just lose your stardust
edit: wow, ok, so if you make an illegal move, you aren't allowed to actually resolve it, I wouldn't have guessed
like with flipping compulse on an empty board, I guess you just have to set it face down
I hope the new konami yuigioh simulator has stuff like, when you click a card to activate it, it goes through how it will activate before actually activating, so if there are only bad targets then you will realise before it's too late
Remember there are limitation behind programming. In the digital world, you can't prove intend AND you can program away Procedural Errors. remember there are no judges to prevent human error but in programming you can lock away any sort of human error by not allowing it as an option.
I think that because some people play using ygo pro or link evolution and you can’t go back on activating card like compulse in this scenario people just though the same logic sets in when they are playing at locals idk but chets are at it again!
Im saving this and showing it to all the try hards in my locals
Let's just read the cards that we play with...I promise it's not that bad( when I say read I mean actually read, not pick up your opponents cards and glare angrily at it and then set it back down)
Can anyone help me with this ruling? Can beat cops protection effect protect arrival cyberse @ignister?
Please do organizing your collection Part 2 I wanna know how do you store your more valuable cards in binders or somewhere else?
Taking my sweet time to film deck core sorting lol