Mifune ruling
 

[url]http://www.bandai.com/naruto/showthread.php?t=100547[/url]


discuss

Isn't worth listening too, everyone knows the game works differently then that.

Don't worry. I'm sure he's just wrong. That doesn't make sense. It's usually attacker priority. Try to PM Tylar and point out the ruling. Unless this is an exception...in that case try to put Training in the Rain in your deck to make sure yours comes in play first...

I'm sorry, I don't want to be rude...but seriously Laughing Man should be put under review for that horrid ruling.

It's Attacker Priority.

This is the level of mod we have now a days? What the hell have I come back to?

Omg I wrote that huge explanation for nothing thanks so much Gary >.<

For those who wondered what he wrote, I'll post it here:

I’m not gonna talk about the power of the card, everyone knows it is strong, I’m here to talk about a ruling made in regards to it. (This ruling) I have the feeling that the ruling was made without prior knowledge on how Attacker and Blocker work for effects. As it stands, whoever gets the Mifune first always negates the other, and that is simply not how the game works.

For a quick bit of background, and an explanation of the difference between effects, we have to look back to an example where the rules DO fit the above. That came in the form of n890 Zetsu [Mysterious Nature], who had a Valid constant continuous effect that said "The effect text of your opponent's Tracked Ninja is negated." Now, unlike Mifune, who has a condition for when his effect is 'on' (While he is opposed), Zetsu is just always on at all times, saying "No" to whatever the Tracked Ninja's effect might be. This is why if a player played Zetsu on Turn 3 can tracked "Sasuke Uchiha", that n934 Sasuke Uchiha (State 2) that they played on their Turn 6 would be negated, since Zetsu is already there saying "No Sasuke, No Sasuke" without an condition to his effect.

Now, on the other hand, we have Mifune, who is not a constant continuous effect. He would be considered a Conditional Continuous effect. There is a clear distinction, and exists within the rules of the game, but merely as offhanded examples in the Q&A and not as an officially stated term (That's another thread all on it's own, really). So Mifune turns 'on' while he is opposed, and is otherwise just considered 'off'. That doesn't mean his effect doesn't exist, it just does not apply. So it isn't that Mifune is always saying "No Effect No Jutsu" All the time, just "While opposed". When two Mifune meet on the field of battle, Both Mifune will try to negate the other before the game moves to check trigger effects that come from "When opposed". Since they're both trying to negate, and they both can't negate or both not negate, one of them has to give.

If we look at a similar type of effect, that does not use the chain and simply applies instantly, we get an idea of how this should likely work. Replacement effects were rules that if two sources are attempting to cause a replacement on a card, the Attacker gets to choose which effect to apply. It isn't "Whichever source of the replacement existed first applies." it's "The Attacker picks which to use." So let's say my opponent plays Shake Hands on Turn 1. Shake Hands says that when a card is discarded, they are Removed from the game Instead, it's a replacement effect. Now, if on My turn, after the Shake Hands was put in play, I discard a Revitalize card, guess what happens? Does the card go the bottom of my Deck or is Removed from Game? The answer is that I, as the Attacker, get to choose. It doesn't matter that Shake Hands was in play first. This means that there is a precedent set that favors the Attacker when it comes to effects that are applying simultaneously without use of the chain.

Whoever the attacker is for the turn, that players turns off the other Mifune, not the player who reached turn 6 and deployed their Mifune first. That destroys the integrity of a part of the game that has remained unchanged for almost 5 years. Why would this rule change now, in regards to a card and a case that should be clean cut?


He expounded on something I wrote.

I saw that ruling yesterday, but I didn't want to believe such a terrible ruling was made... ugh...

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--

I was the middle. Gary set the foundation, I just like to ramble.

He was the technical explanation.

How can this be the correct ruling? It doesn't apply to this type of effect. I can understand why it works with Zetsu, like Shino'sDad mentioned, but Mifune isn't a put in play. This needs to be changed, it doesn't make any sense.