Jump to content

Welcome to DuelistGroundz
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Monarch vs. Veiler vs. Bottomless


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1
Oh_The_Irony

Oh_The_Irony

    Guardian

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 820 posts
I tribute summon Raiza the Storm Monarch and target my opponent's face-up Thunder King Rai-Oh. My opponent responds with chaining Effect Veiler to Raiza, then chaining Bottomless Trap Hole. I tell him that Raiza will get it's effect since it is no longer face-up on the field for Veiler to stop it's effect. He disagrees, so I ask Chief to help us with the rulings dispute, and he sides with the opponent.

I just want to make sure this is the correct ruling, and if so how it is different from attempting to Veiler a Lonefire Blossom that has been called priority with.

Thanks.
  • 0

#2
Subway_Eat_Fresh

Subway_Eat_Fresh

    Underworld Duelist

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1784 posts

I tribute summon Raiza the Storm Monarch and target my opponent's face-up Thunder King Rai-Oh. My opponent responds with chaining Effect Veiler to Raiza, then chaining Bottomless Trap Hole. I tell him that Raiza will get it's effect since it is no longer face-up on the field for Veiler to stop it's effect. He disagrees, so I ask Chief to help us with the rulings dispute, and he sides with the opponent.

I just want to make sure this is the correct ruling, and if so how it is different from attempting to Veiler a Lonefire Blossom that has been called priority with.

Thanks.


Veiler only negates the effect of a monster that resolves on the field. Since Raiza is removed from play when Raiza's effect resolves, his effect is no longer negated by Veiler.
  • 3

#3
Oh_The_Irony

Oh_The_Irony

    Guardian

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 820 posts


I tribute summon Raiza the Storm Monarch and target my opponent's face-up Thunder King Rai-Oh. My opponent responds with chaining Effect Veiler to Raiza, then chaining Bottomless Trap Hole. I tell him that Raiza will get it's effect since it is no longer face-up on the field for Veiler to stop it's effect. He disagrees, so I ask Chief to help us with the rulings dispute, and he sides with the opponent.

I just want to make sure this is the correct ruling, and if so how it is different from attempting to Veiler a Lonefire Blossom that has been called priority with.

Thanks.


Veiler only negates the effect of a monster that resolves on the field. Since Raiza is removed from play when Raiza's effect resolves, his effect is no longer negated by Veiler.


Alright, thanks. That's what I thought.
  • 0

#4
IAmTheGreat

IAmTheGreat

    Ground Duelist

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4158 posts
Chief is usually pretty good with his rulings o.o
  • 0

#5
Keyboard Warrior Cromat

Keyboard Warrior Cromat

    絶望王-Des Topia

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4664 posts
he could do bottom then veiler
  • -2

#6
Morleh

Morleh

    Kyaaah!~

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2180 posts

he could do bottom then veiler


Nope. It won't be negated.
  • 0

#7
Relianah

Relianah

    King of the Nerds

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5520 posts


he could do bottom then veiler


Nope. It won't be negated.

I'm pretty sure it will... if he activates bottomless to the summon then chains veiler afterwards veiler will have already resolved once it gets removed and it activates on the field so it gets negated (kind of like if you negate a lonefire and then he tributes it for its effect)
  • -1

#8
Morleh

Morleh

    Kyaaah!~

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2180 posts



he could do bottom then veiler


Nope. It won't be negated.

I'm pretty sure it will... if he activates bottomless to the summon then chains veiler afterwards veiler will have already resolved once it gets removed and it activates on the field so it gets negated (kind of like if you negate a lonefire and then he tributes it for its effect)


From: William Falta
Sent: 12/1/10 2:35 PM EST
To: us-ygorules@konami.com
Subject: Multiple Effect Veilers

Consider the following chain:

Chain Link 1: “Caius the Shadow Monarch”
Chain Link 2: “Effect Veiler”
Chain Link 3: “Book of Moon”
Chain Link 4: “Effect Veiler”

1) In this case, would the effect of “Effect Veiler” negate the effect of Caius in this chain?

2) Would this be the same result if “Forbidden Chalice” were used instead of “Effect Veiler?”

3) If “Compulsory Evacuation Device” were used instead of “Book of Moon,” would it have the same result?

From: us-ygorules@konami.com
Sent: 1/25/11 4:37 PM EST
To: William Falta
Subject: Multiple Effect Veilers

1) No

2) The monster needs to be face-up and being negated when its own effect resolves for either card.

3) It would


The Lonefire situation is different, too. You're ACTIVATING an Ignition Effect while it is under "Effect Veiler's" effect. In this case, a Trigger Effect activated, and is then banished from the field before it resolves (so it's not affected by Veiler).
  • 4

#9
Chief

Chief

    Guardian

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
I see where I made my mistake. Sorry I got this wrong Irony.
  • 1

#10
Relianah

Relianah

    King of the Nerds

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5520 posts




he could do bottom then veiler


Nope. It won't be negated.

I'm pretty sure it will... if he activates bottomless to the summon then chains veiler afterwards veiler will have already resolved once it gets removed and it activates on the field so it gets negated (kind of like if you negate a lonefire and then he tributes it for its effect)


From: William Falta
Sent: 12/1/10 2:35 PM EST
To: us-ygorules@konami.com
Subject: Multiple Effect Veilers

Consider the following chain:

Chain Link 1: “Caius the Shadow Monarch”
Chain Link 2: “Effect Veiler”
Chain Link 3: “Book of Moon”
Chain Link 4: “Effect Veiler”

1) In this case, would the effect of “Effect Veiler” negate the effect of Caius in this chain?

2) Would this be the same result if “Forbidden Chalice” were used instead of “Effect Veiler?”

3) If “Compulsory Evacuation Device” were used instead of “Book of Moon,” would it have the same result?

From: us-ygorules@konami.com
Sent: 1/25/11 4:37 PM EST
To: William Falta
Subject: Multiple Effect Veilers

1) No

2) The monster needs to be face-up and being negated when its own effect resolves for either card.

3) It would


The Lonefire situation is different, too. You're ACTIVATING an Ignition Effect while it is under "Effect Veiler's" effect. In this case, a Trigger Effect activated, and is then banished from the field before it resolves (so it's not affected by Veiler).

Ahh okay didn't know there was a difference between ignition effects and trigger effect for veiler, learn something new every day I suppose.
  • 0

#11
Morleh

Morleh

    Kyaaah!~

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2180 posts

Ahh okay didn't know there was a difference between ignition effects and trigger effect for veiler, learn something new every day I suppose.


That's not even it. If I use my Coelacanth's effect and you BTH then Veiler it, it'll still work, too.

I only stressed Ignition to say that it applies and activates on the field. When you use BTH, the card isn't affected by Veiler anymore.
  • 0

#12
Relianah

Relianah

    King of the Nerds

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5520 posts

Ahh okay didn't know there was a difference between ignition effects and trigger effect for veiler, learn something new every day I suppose.


That's not even it. If I use my Coelacanth's effect and you BTH then Veiler it, it'll still work, too.

I only stressed Ignition to say that it applies and activates on the field. When you use BTH, the card isn't affected by Veiler anymore.

Because when it activates it's not on the field to be negated even tho it was resolved while on the field, kk, thanks for the extra explanation
  • 0

#13
Pharaoh Atem

Pharaoh Atem

    The Ruler of Benevolence - Your Translator

  • ~+-Superior of the In-Between-+~
  • 20529 posts
Here's the thing.

I've said before that Veiler negates all effects of its target monster that activate or apply on the field.

A more precise way of saying this is that Veiler negates all effects of its target that are activated or applied for the duration of time that Veiler's own effect applies to its target.


When you activate an effect, and Veiler is Chained to that effect, the effect was activated BEFORE Veiler was activated, meaning that the effect was activated BEFORE Veiler's effect was applied to its target,

This means that Veiler can negate said effect only if said effect tries to apply at a point during that application, because the activation didn't occur during the application.

Taking the monster off the field before its effect resolves means that Veiler's target doesn't see an effect belonging to its target trying to activate or apply.
  • 0

#14
John Danker

John Danker

    Underworld Duelist

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
Ruling:

If the targeted monster is no longer face-up on the field when Effect Veiler's effect resolves, the targeted monster's effect(s) will not be negated.
  • 0

#15
Keyboard Warrior Cromat

Keyboard Warrior Cromat

    絶望王-Des Topia

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4664 posts

Ruling:

If the targeted monster is no longer face-up on the field when Effect Veiler's effect resolves, the targeted monster's effect(s) will not be negated.


if the chain is this

cl1: caius
cl2: bottom
cl3: veiler

isn't caius face up when veiler's effect resolves?
  • 0

#16
Sacked

Sacked

    Guardian

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 745 posts


Ruling:

If the targeted monster is no longer face-up on the field when Effect Veiler's effect resolves, the targeted monster's effect(s) will not be negated.


if the chain is this

cl1: caius
cl2: bottom
cl3: veiler

isn't caius face up when veiler's effect resolves?


read all the other posts :S

caius is removed by bottomless, then his effect activates since he is cl1. It doesn't matter when veiler resolves, it matters when caius resolves
  • 0

#17
Keyboard Warrior Cromat

Keyboard Warrior Cromat

    絶望王-Des Topia

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4664 posts
following chain happens

caius is summoned

CL1: Caius
CL2: Bottomless
CL3: Effect veiler

does caius get negated?

I know that if

CL1: Caius
CL2: Veiler
CL3: Bottomless

caius is not negated since veiler cannot target caius.
Like · · Unsubscribe · 8 hours ago

Paul Kite Yes Caius will be negated in the first scenario, but not in the second. A monster which Effect Veiler's effect has successfully resolved upon will resolve without effect that activates on the field no matter where the monster goes before resolution.
8 hours ago · Like
Kirsch Mackey What about the case with Book of Moon in the chain where Bottomless Trap Hole is? I remember reading that the monster must be face up on the field and Veiler must have resolved during resolution of the monster's effect in order for it to be negated.
6 hours ago · Like
Paul Kite If we replace Bottomless with Book of Moon it doesn't change. In the first situation Caius still has his effect negated and in the second Veiler's effect resolves unsuccessfully.
6 hours ago · Like
John Danker ‎(Ruling:) If the effect of Effect Veiler resolves, and the targeted monster is then flipped face-down, its effect(s) will no longer be negated, even if it is flipped face-up again later that turn.
about an hour ago · Like · 1 person
Barry Huang john danker: can u answer my original question? is paul right?
about an hour ago · Like
Ray Shen Yes Paul is right.

Effect Veiler resolves before Bottomless so Caius will be negated before it will be Banished by Bottomless.
27 minutes ago · Like
  • 0

#18
Keyboard Warrior Cromat

Keyboard Warrior Cromat

    絶望王-Des Topia

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4664 posts
John Danker
Lets see if I can answer this giving examples:

Example #1.
CL1: Caius CL2: BTH CL3: Veiler=Caius's effect is negated.

Example #2.
CL1: Caius CL2: BOM CL3: Veiler = Caius's effect resolves corretly.

Example #3...
CL1: Caius, CL2: CED, CL3 Veiler = Caius's effect is negated.
  • 0

#19
Pharaoh Atem

Pharaoh Atem

    The Ruler of Benevolence - Your Translator

  • ~+-Superior of the In-Between-+~
  • 20529 posts
Did we all misread that email?
  • 0

#20
Relianah

Relianah

    King of the Nerds

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5520 posts
So I was right? This is confusing lol
  • 0

#21
John Danker

John Danker

    Underworld Duelist

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
Effect Veiler's rulings aren't written in a very clear and concise manner that clearly defines all those scenarios.

Removed face up in chain after Veiler resolves=negated
Put face down in a chain after Veiler resolves= not negated
Removed face up in chain before Veiler resolves=not negated
  • 3

#22
John Danker

John Danker

    Underworld Duelist

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1369 posts

So I was right? This is confusing lol


You're right, it is confusing. The official rulings for Effect Veiler could certainly have been more complete and descriptive.
  • 0

#23
Keyboard Warrior Cromat

Keyboard Warrior Cromat

    絶望王-Des Topia

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4664 posts
i want my rep back
  • 2

#24
John Danker

John Danker

    Underworld Duelist

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1369 posts

Did we all misread that email?


You mean the one concerning Compulsory Evacuation Device? If that's what you mean then no, you didn't misread the e-mail, the e-mail had a typo in in and rather than writing "would" was intended to be written as "wouldn't"
  • 0

#25
Chief

Chief

    Guardian

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
Wait so did I get this right or wrong?
  • 0

#26
John Danker

John Danker

    Underworld Duelist

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1369 posts

Wait so did I get this right or wrong?


Read my post and you tell me. I can't make it any clearer than I did....I don't think.
  • 0

#27
Sharpman

Sharpman

    sharper than hammar

  • Essex
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5179 posts
I saw this in an email somewhere in the rulings forum way back, i'm not able to find it

cl1 caius
cl2 book
cl3 veiler

for some odd reason the chain went like this. Veiler did negate caius, but then he was flipped face down. Veiler states that the target is a face up monster, so since the monster is no longer face up, does Caius not resolve without issue, whether Veiler did or not?

Similar to when how a nomi/ semi nomi is flipped via book, they "forget" they were properly summoned, Caius "forgets" he was negated. Sangan "forgets" he was on the field, and so on and so forth.
  • 0

#28
John Danker

John Danker

    Underworld Duelist

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1369 posts
Effect Veiler

Official Ruling:

If the effect of Effect Veiler resolves, and the targeted monster is then flipped face-down, its effect(s) will no longer be negated, even if it is flipped face-up again later that turn.
  • 0

#29
Sharpman

Sharpman

    sharper than hammar

  • Essex
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5179 posts

Effect Veiler

Official Ruling:

If the effect of Effect Veiler resolves, and the targeted monster is then flipped face-down, its effect(s) will no longer be negated, even if it is flipped face-up again later that turn.


does this ruling apply if the monster leaves the field instead of being flipped face down
  • 0

#30
John Danker

John Danker

    Underworld Duelist

  • »Retired Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1369 posts

does this ruling apply if the monster leaves the field instead of being flipped face down


Read my earlier post
  • 0

#31
Lamp

Lamp

    Underworld Duelist

  • Duelist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1569 posts
John Danker - 213
DGZ - 0

:-,
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users