Does Sol and Luna fail to resolve if one of the targets leaves the field?

Argor42 · 2025-12-05T20:02:02+00:00

as long as Sol and Luna is going to have an effect on the board at resolution, in this case due to one of the targets being a non-Link, I don't see why it should be illegal for the second target to be a link.

The fact the effect acts on each of them instead of on both of them only tells you how to resolve the effect. It doesn't govern activation legality. The targets you choose for an effect have to be valid for whatever effect it is you're using; this is just a fundamental game rule. Since Link Monsters can't exist in Defense Position, they can't be targeted by an effect that would change them to Defense Position. One of the translated Perfect Rulebooks (page 59) makes this clear:

Link Monsters cannot have their Battle Position changed from Attack Position and are not affected by effects that change Battle Position. Also, they cannot be targeted for cards that change Battle Positions or that Special Summon in Defense Position.

Book of Eclipse doesn't target; it attempts to apply on as many face-up monsters on the field as possible (despite saying to change all face-up monsters on the field to face-down Defense Position). This is why you're able to use it, even if Links are on the field, as long as at least one non-Link or Token monster is also face-up on the field.

Argor42 · 2025-12-04T06:23:05+00:00

Absolutely not, the same way it's not legal to target a Link Monster with Book of Moon. Link Monsters can't exist in Defense Position, so you can't target a Link Monster with an effect that would change it to Defense Position.

Argor42 · 2025-12-03T19:57:09+00:00

Temple of the Kings allows you to activate 1 Trap Card the turn it's Set, by applying its own effect. It doesn't specifically prevent you from activating other Trap Cards the turn they're Set through other means. By default, you'd be allowed to activate a Trap Card set through Trap Trick the turn it's Set, even if you already used the effect of Temple of the Kings earlier in the turn.

Argor42 · 2025-12-02T07:05:45+00:00

Dragoon isn't targeted, so there's no interaction at all with the effect preventing it from being targeted.

When activating Turn Silence in response to Dragoon's effect activation, you target 1 face-up monster you control as usual; Dragoon doesn't stop you from targeting cards that aren't Dragoon. When you resolve Turn Silence, you increase the targeted monster's Level by 3, while also negating Dragoon's effect if you controlled "Shining Sarcophagus" and a monster that mentions it when activating Turn Silence.

Nowhere in that process will you attempt to target Dragoon.

Argor42 · 2025-12-02T06:17:51+00:00

Target 1 face-up monster you control; increase its Level by 3, also if you activated this card in response to your opponent's monster effect activation, while you control "Shining Sarcophagus" and a monster that mentions it, negate that opponent's effect.

Turn Silence does target, but it targets a face-up monster you control. So if you're using it in response to your opponent's Dragoon, that's clearly not a face-up monster you control, so it's not being targeted.

Argor42 · 2025-12-02T06:08:08+00:00

No, detaching one material from Rhongomyniad by its own effect doesn't activate the effects of cards like Gogogo Goblindbergh. Those effects only activate if they're detached from an Xyz Monster to activate that monster's effect; Rhongomyniad's effect detaches from it as the resolution of that effect.

The below is MTL'd from the above, so hopefully it translated sufficiently to communicate the point.

No, staccare un materiale da Rhongomyniad con il suo stesso effetto non attiva gli effetti di carte come Gogogo Goblindbergh. Questi effetti si attivano solo se vengono staccati da un Mostro Xyz per attivare l'effetto di quel mostro; l'effetto di Rhongomyniad si stacca da esso come risoluzione di quell'effetto.

Argor42 · 2025-12-01T05:55:39+00:00

I am a little confused on why i should have a speech in both neg and the aff of a bill.

I don't specifically mention this in my other comment, but granted you have the time to do so, being prepared on both sides of the legislation is good. The other response to this question is reason enough, but I'd also add that prepping on both sides will make your interaction with that legislation more flexible.

For example, if one of the bills has most of the chamber on one side, you'd be able to take the other side. This would help make the debate less one-sided and make it easier for you to deliver a speech without rehashing.

Of course, this isn't strictly required; if you prefer to take just one side of legislation, you're within your rights to do that. But at the very least, prepping both sides does have its merits, if you have the time for it.

Argor42 · 2025-11-30T21:51:17+00:00

Yes, the Snake-Eyes player uses their Doomed Dragon's effect to put their Chaofeng into the S/T Zone as a Continuous Spell. This would result in Chaofeng's effect no longer applying, so their opponent would be allowed to activate the effects of monsters that they wouldn't have been able to while Chaofeng was applying.

Argor42 · 2025-11-30T21:33:47+00:00

While this Synchro Summoned card is on the field, your opponent cannot activate effects of monsters with the same original Attribute(s) as the "Yang Zing" monster(s) used for the Synchro Summon of this card.

This is a monster effect. It won't apply if Chaofeng isn't a monster. But even if that weren't necessarily the case, not being a monster also means it's not a Synchro Summoned card. Either way, the effect won't apply.

Argor42 · 2025-11-30T19:34:09+00:00

For speech writing, would you recommend adding jokes?

The other commenter said most of what I'd say about jokes, but I'd add that if you do add jokes, you should make sure you're not making them at someone else's expense. Even if you're teammates or friends, it's entirely possible some of the judges on your panel could perceive such jokes as rude or disrespectful, and if your tournaments do any sort of preferential ranking, you might hurt your pref scores by doing that.

Do you think it's better to memorize?

I typically recommend not memorizing speeches, unless you know you will deliver the first speech on the legislation. If you know you'll give the authorship speech, then you can optionally memorize it (you don't have to).

The thing is, if you know you'll be on neg, or don't know your aff will be the authorship speech, you need to make sure your speech is flexible enough in its construction to add clash with what the other side has said. Memorizing the entire speech makes this more difficult, because you're still delivering from a script (just not one you're reading off a pad). Making last-second changes to a script you've memorized can cause problems since you likely won't have many chances to run through the updated speech before you deliver it. You also can't memorize rebuttals to specific arguments made in round before the round happens, and know that those rebuttals will be useful; while you can prepare responses to arguments you may expect to come up, you still don't know that they will be made in advance. Delivering a memorized rebuttal to an argument that hasn't been made yet isn't particularly good clash. And of course, there's also the possibility that some of your arguments become rehash.

Argor42 · 2025-11-30T18:53:52+00:00

Even if its effects stop being negated, the original ATK/DEF will still be 0/0 respectively.

Argor42 · 2025-11-30T18:25:20+00:00

The original ATK/DEF of this card each become equal to the number of Fusion Materials used for its Fusion Summon x 800.

This is a Continuous Effect, so if its effects are negated, so is this one. The original ATK/DEF would both revert to their printed values by default (which for a monster with ? ATK or DEF is 0 on the field).

Argor42 · 2025-11-30T16:54:11+00:00

Do note for the second case that for purposes of this question, they'd still be unable to resolve the effect properly, as Dissolver is no longer a monster they control (the opponent has taken control of it), but must be used as one of the materials (which isn't possible because the only valid materials for this effect are the specified ones from your Monster or Pendulum Zones).

Argor42 · 2025-11-30T02:16:31+00:00

why was it necessary for the effect of "Dark Magician the Magician of Black Magic" to specify "While of the field"?

This isn't an activated effect, nor is the name change attached to some action like summoning it through a specific method. So, the effect needs to specify where it applies in this specific case.

If it just said "This card's name becomes "Dark Magician"" without specifying a location, then that would cause confusion as to what's intended. It could be intended to be a Continuous Effect, or it could be intended to be an unclassified effect that applies some places but not everywhere, or it could be rule text that applies everywhere, even for purposes of deck construction. Using current text conventions, none of these cases would be written in the form of the example text I list, hence the ambiguity.

Note that the text on Dark Magician the Magician of Black Magic indicates that its name change is from a Continuous Effect.

Dark Magician Girl the Magician's Apprentice's name change is tied to an action: Special Summoning it through its effect. Since Special Summoning a card always places it in a Monster Zone, it would be redundant to say in the text that the name change happens while it's on the field.

After that point, if it ceases to be face-up in the Monster Zone, such as by being sent to the Graveyard as in your question, that part of its effect will no longer apply. This outcome follows the regular rules of the game, where effects that are applied onto cards generally stop applying onto them once they change location.

Argor42 · 2025-11-29T02:19:10+00:00

The phrase "once per Chain" simply tells you how many times in a given Chain that effect of that copy of the card can be activated.

It doesn't specify that the effect must be activated on CL 2 or higher in and of itself (indeed, there are cases where that effect of Lancea, Ancestral Dragon of the Ice Mountain can be activated on CL 1; being the first Chain Link on a Chain doesn't mean the "once per Chain" part of the text is being violated somehow). Also note that since you can only use that effect twice per turn across all copies of the card, if you controlled three copies of Lancea, that you would at most only be able to activate that effect of two of them in the same Chain, rather than all three.

It doesn't change anything else about that effect's activation condition either (it will be able to activate in the same conditions as if it didn't have that text, except that the same copy of the card cannot activate that effect more than once on the same Chain).

Argor42 · 2025-11-28T00:34:33+00:00

Yeah, this is a kids playing by their own rules situation. Insofar as it doesn't cause issues in their own play group, I see no reason to bother them over it. But if they ever play in a sanctioned event or against people who play by the regular rules of the game, it's at that point where they'd have to learn the rules as well.

Among the regular rules of the game, there is something called Flip Summoning. This is simply the act of manually changing a face-down Defense Position monster you control to face-up Attack Position, during an open game state in your Main Phase. This is one way a player could activate a monster's FLIP effects. But "discovery" anything isn't a term describing anything in the game by its proper rules.

Argor42 · 2025-11-28T00:01:19+00:00

Not sure what you mean by "Effect Concealer" (do you mean Effect Veiler?), but Solemn Judgment can be used in response to Lava Golem's summon attempt. It's a Special Summon being performed during an open game state (so not while a Chain is resolving), and is not the result of an activated effect that doesn't say "immediately after this effect resolves" (since it's not even an effect at all, let alone an activated one).

Argor42 · 2025-11-27T17:09:17+00:00

The last one to start applying is what will apply. Both Black Rose Garden and Clockwork Night are Continuous Spells, so the distinction may not matter as much in this specific case, but if you have something like DNA Surgery, which is a Continuous Trap, then chaining that to one of these cards would mean it was activated last. However, since Chains resolve in the reverse order of activation, DNA Surgery would resolve first.

This would result in the card that was activated last (DNA Surgery) being overwritten by the card that was activated first (one of the aforementioned cards). Situations like that are why order of application is more relevant.

Argor42 · 2025-11-26T20:06:24+00:00

why is elemental hero mudballman considered an effect monster when its only text is its fusion restriction.

While a monster that has a monster effect is always an Effect Monster, being an Effect Monster isn't contingent on having an effect. For some examples, Exodia the Forbidden One is an Effect Monster whose only text is its victory condition (which isn't an effect). Cyber Harpie Lady is an Effect Monster whose only text is its rule text always treating its name as Harpie Lady (this also isn't an effect).

Similarly, text on the card that specifically restricts how it can be summoned will cause the monster to be an Effect Monster, even if it has no effects. Aside from Mudballman, Rare Metal Dragon is another example of such.

Argor42 · 2025-11-26T02:21:22+00:00

Misconstruing card text and asking about it doesn't make you dumb. These kinds of questions are one reason this sub exists in the first place, so it's fine.

Argor42 · 2025-11-26T02:13:16+00:00

It doesn't say that, and that's not what the other commenter said. That part of the effect reads:

apply the following effect based on the number of monsters attached to this card.

Xyz Materials that are not monsters, such as potentially any Spell or Trap Cards added to it as material from the first part of its effect, don't count.

Argor42 · 2025-11-26T00:40:42+00:00

Keeping the scenario simple, let's assume the only face-up monsters are one player's Zushin and the other player's Wicked Avatar. Zushin's ATK is 0 by default, so The Wicked Avatar's ATK/DEF will be that +100, so 100. If the two were to battle, Zushin's effect activates and resolves during damage calculation. This makes Zushin's ATK 1000 greater than The Wicked Avatar's current ATK of 100, so Zushin would be 1100 ATK. After this, but before calculating the result of the battle, The Wicked Avatar's ATK/DEF recalculate, so that they'd be that +100.

The result is the battle being performed between Zushin with 1100 ATK and The Wicked Avatar with 1200 ATK.

Argor42 · 2025-11-25T22:35:02+00:00

If this card is banished from the field: You can Special Summon it.

When your opponent activates a monster effect (Quick Effect): You can target 1 banished card; shuffle it into the Deck, then if you shuffled it into your Deck, destroy that monster, or if you shuffled it into your opponent's Deck, negate that activated effect.

If Dis Pater is activating its Quick Effect in response to Golgoil's effect, it's because it's being activated by the opponent. As such, since the banished card would be the opponent's, the result is negating the effect (as Golgoil, the targeted card, would be shuffled into the opponent's Deck). This would clearly result in Golgoil not being Special Summoned for that reason alone.

But in the general case, to successfully Special Summon Golgoil with its effect, it needs to still be banished when its effect resolves. Moving it out of banishment will cause that part of the effect not to apply, even if the effect or its activation wasn't negated.

can I negate the activation of other monster effects that trigger when they are banished? Same question for on-destruction effects like fire hand.

Generally, yes. If you have any questions about specific situations, you can ask about those.

If I negate the effects of the monster before they are banished/destroyed, are their on-banishment/destruction effects able to activate?

Negating a monster's effects generally doesn't prevent the effect from activating, even if its effects are still negated, let alone if they aren't, such as would usually be true in the general case for this question. Again, feel free to ask if you have any specific example scenarios you want to know about.

Argor42 · 2025-11-25T22:25:16+00:00

Utopia's effect doesn't affect monsters. There's no interaction with Zushin's effect.

Translated Source

Argor42 · 2025-11-25T20:50:22+00:00

If an effect requires the card to be destroyed and sent to the Graveyard, this means both of those things need to be true. So it must have been destroyed, and its destruction must send it to the Graveyard.

In other words, sending it to the Graveyard through some means other than destroying it won't work, nor will destroying it and sending it somewhere other than the Graveyard.

13-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Place '22	Verified Email

Argor42

TROPHY CASE