So, even if you have Clausolas in your hand/grave when activating something like Cycle, you wouldn't be able to summon something like Trishula, Valk, Gungnir, etc because it's considered a completely simultaneous action for Ritual Summoning rather than a sequenced mechanic.Įdit: I'll likely make another video clearing it up with the seemingly final verdict for how it works today to avoid confusion for players. I'm fortunate to have thousands of viewers and able to make something as simple as a ruling go semi-viral to get a response from many individuals, particularly those who are qualified to clarify and explain those mechanics more so than myself or any other individual.Īs of now, I personally agree with how it shouldn't be the way with how I described in the video. I wanted to get a response and a fast one because I have a regionals here in California next week the day after Norden is released. I made a post on it about an hour after that a few select judges and The Organization was able to give me a complete breakdown of the concept and mechanics of Norden/Shurit. It just amounts to a straight up errata in my mind. Realistically hot n sweaty unicore x unicore action is something that's up to the head judge on the ground to call, and the entire you can't unicore for unicore thing very much seems like a fashion that's being spread within judging circles based around a desire to put the square peg in the round hole because Konami's put something absurd on their cards. Heck it's even in the guidelines for MTG. It's just a case of polymerisation pre-errata, not "ritual spells all work this way true story ignore what the card text says." Every ritual spell should operate under its own set of laws because they're different cards, and the card text should trump the rulebook because that's how card games work and that's the guideline judges have supposedly been given to go with PSCT, since Konami isn't in the business of ruling clarifications. Yet from what I see we get these rulings coming out of the judge circuit and people are expected to follow them "because ritual spell mechanics are supposed to work this way." This is the TCG, not the OCG, and judges are supposedly told to rule based on what the card says regardless of what bullshit Konami decides to print there. This is the fundamental issue behind these rulings. Note the above is true only for OCG territories.īecause Norden's TCG text is confirmed to be different from GB Darius in the TCG, it would be entirely justified for Event HJs in the TCG to rule that Norden does not persistently target the Summoned monster in the TCG, and for that reason, said HJs would be entirely justified in insisting that the Summoned monster being banished is inevitable even if Norden is flipped face-down. Norden doesn't need to be presently targeting you for your effects to be negated, as well Norden's persistent targeting is ruled there to banish that card when Norden leaves the field, as a more modern form of GB Darius, such that the Summoned monster is not banished upon leaving the field if that persistent targeting somehow ends beforehand, like if Norden is flipped face-down. The used monsters haven't moved anywhere at this point, so the idea of Shurit being "off the field and targeted by Norden" isn't just wrong, it doesn't even apply to your question. The choice to apply Shurit's effect or not is made at the first moment of resolving the Ritual Spell - the moment where "what monsters to use" is decided.
The idea that Norden "targets the Summoned card, even off the field" is mistaken, because a card that just left the field is not able to be identified as "the summoned monster" and Norden may only target something it has hence summoned in this case. You should really avoid saying "I know this is how it is in the OCG" around here, for multiple reasons, first of which would be that the OCG database is ridic-easy for most people to misunderstand.
0 kommentar(er)
