RULING - Illegal Play Advantage! Exodia, Drytron DAD, Snatch Steal 

I also was confused about that. I don't see how that was ever a debate. 2000 > 0 That's just simple math

you can't overpay costs For example, if i want to ritual summon a level 8 monster with a ritual spell that allows you to use monsters whose level sum is 8 or higher, you can send 1+7 or 2+7, but you cannot send 1+8 when 8 is sufficient by itself. As for Situation 1, i think it's just one of those cases where card effect has higher priority over ruling if they conflict, DAD has the clause "min 1" to overrule the "cannot negate 0 atk because of overpay" situation.

It's a matter of there's another drytron ruling where Metro is drytron cannot ritual summon a 0 atk ritual, due to "overpaying" the attack points

Yeah I don’t get why he’s acting like this is some big one time only ruling or a controversial take. This should be one of the most obvious things ever for anyone that reads the card

Because the Ritual Spell uses the same wording and has an explicit ruling that it can't be used with 0 ATK Ritual Monsters. To be honest, the logical answer as Tom said would have been to be unable to negate, or at least fully reverse this along with Meteonis Drytron.

"overpaying" is exclusively a ritual summoning ruling in the first place. It's not even unique to Meteonis like you seem to think it is? this is silly and you look silly.

@@yataboi The problem here isn't DAD doing its work but the difference between the 2 cards and Meteonis having the exclusive ruling preventing the use of 0 ATK ritual monsters. Also "overpaying" isn't exclusive to Ritual Summoning, for example Machina Fortress. The Drytron case just creates confusion that can be problematic in the future when we get a similar situation, especially if the "(Min.1)" doesn't exist to make us think it works like DAD, or even worse if it exist but it works like the spell.

dont use him as an example, tombox does not know the difference between cost and condition.

@@raygonzales2208 meteonis drytrons has that same text….. yet ruling states it cannot summon relinquish

@MSTTV that's for a ritual summon. The DAD is for a negate. 2 different things. You cannot overpay for a ritual summon by sending an 8 and a 4 for a level 8 monster. However it's different if you are summoning a level 9 monster

@@MSTTV i believe that is just a special ruling for meteonis as there really aren't any other cards that work the same way

@@MSTTV Meteonis is the BKSS ruling, not DDAD. There's absolutely no reason Meteonis shouldn't be able to summon Relinquished based on the card text, it's a stupid ruling that goes directly against the text of the card.

Its only for 0 attack, the logic is just that if u want to negate 0 attack banishing none would be the correct amount to banish, as the total attack would be 0, but because it says min 1 u have to banish 1, meaning it doesn't make sense as then its 1 more than necessary to equal the attack

When something is 0 you perform no action, you can't say I drew 0 cards so I can't activate Prosperity. The same applies here, with 0 meaning it's free so you can't pay the cost. And if you can't pay the cost of a card or effect you can't activate them This was a ruling for Meteonis Drytron preventing its use with 0 ATK Ritual Monsters. Personally I like the change here with DAD, but I believe both cards should work the same way and not contradict themselves

​@babrad Please help me understand, cuz I don't see what your point is with overpayment. DAD clearly states that the atk must equal or EXCEED the atk of the monster being negated. How can there be an overpayment when exceeding the atk, or the atk being equal, is what DAD is requesting as cost.

@@calixtoguzman1886 Meteonis Drytron when released got a ruling that it cannot be used for 0 ATK Ritual Monsters. In a way, think of 0 as not happening instead of a numerical value comparable to others. Or when a 0 ATK monster attacks another, both survive. When you "Draw 0 cards" you don't draw. So because the monster in question has 0 ATK (nothing) whatever you attempt to use as cost is essentially overpaying. But since you need to pay cost in order to use the effect, you can't use said effect. Then when DAD came out, it got a specific ruling that its effect works with 0 ATK monsters, and that directly contradicts the ritual spell ruling. This situation is even worse in TCG because we don't have an official database or rulings on the release of the cards to refer to, so you need to ask the head judge of said event every time. Personally I believe both effects should work with 0 ATK monsters, but more importantly they should work the SAME way so they can be used a precedence for future rulings, instead of having such a mess. Hope this helps. YGO is infinitely more troublesome for people trying to find reason about its rulings.

I believe this is TCG exclusive text :D. Because OCG they just have one and the same... which is why when DDAD was announced people thought it was trash and continued spreading that info it couldn't negate 0.

@@MSTTV That's really funny if so.

To give you some future advice, what you did is the worst you could have done after your opponent called a judge. When an illegal play happens you have to call a judge yourself. Telling them about the unrelated illegal plays at a later point makes your argument weaker and can easily backfire. In the judge's mind goes like this: - You attempt to paint the picture in your favor in the current situation when the opponent did nothing wrong. - You recognized and noted the illegal plays in an attempt to "shark" if the situation became unfavorable for you. - Those illegal plays benefited you more at that time so you let them pass until they didn't benefit you Then unless there were spectators or a 3rd person to validate your claims, it's your word against your opponent's and there is no way a judge will value your words more since both players will (should) be treated equally. The only exception is if your opponent is known for that behavior and was previously caught doing something similar. Don't forget that BOTH players are responsible for maintaining the gamestate at all times. You are the "judge" for your opponent, and they are for you. The actual judge will come over only to solve a dispute. So don't be afraid to call a judge if it's noteworthy in order to avoid said situations. Now about the time rules specifically it's hard to decide since no case is identical. I understand your point, but the opponent could just be shuffling to pass time until you were ready. But 8 minute extension was long, and should have been given at the start of the duel for said reason, not in the end. Did any other judge call eat your time? Personally I find this complete BS, that the extension was given AFTER you revealed Dogwood and the game was essentially decided. Did you properly explain the situation? For example "opponent called you now after I resolved Dogwood and got LP while this is game 3" or something. Just trying to give you feedback from a judge's perspective.

@@Exapico and meteonis drytrons also has that same text, yet Meteonis isn’t allowed to summon 0 atk rituals

@@MSTTV Wouldn't this more be tied to how rituals are summoned given you can't overpay even for regular ritual summoning by using something like an 8 and a 2 to summon a level 8 ritual monster for example; Meteonis Drytron would just be modifying what stat you are looking at to ritual summon, not fully changing the rules of ritual summoning. Compare that to what DAD is asking about, which looks more like "banish a monster" is the cost and the "drytron" and attack amount are conditions applied to the cost. And as the previous poster pointed out DAD says "(min. 1)", which does not appear on Meteonis Drytron. This seems more like a matter of using similar wording to convey a thematic identity across multiple different game mechanics within the same archetype, which is good design.

@@MSTTV check the text of meteonis drytron again "You must also Tribute Machine monsters from your hand or field whose total ATK equal or exceed the ATK of the Ritual Monster you Ritual Summon." it does not have the "(min. 1)" clause that is present on DAD

An example. Reichphobia decreased the atk of a dark monster below 2500 but they used eradication epidemic virus, and looked at your entire hand and upcoming draws.. then realized it was illegal… reparable game state still ….

Use to be illegal Mind Crush back in the day, or Dust shoot but they only have 3 cards

Eradication epidemic virus but the monster stat was affected by Riechphobia decreased its attack.

You wouldn’t be able to activate it because equipping 5 is mandatory

@@DemisedDill cannot activate it. It’s 5 pieces or no activation at all

U know what’s funny, simply by not declaring chain links, EVERYONE that misplayed the card said but I saw that’s how it worked in the Grandpa vs Yugi!

“ I’ll destroy it via Exodias effect “ on the forbidden dress resolving

@@Shadowbullet920 significant advantage is not considered for reparable game states is 1 camp. The illegal play still warrants a warning by base. If it’s not intentional, it’s not cheating, honest mistake. Camp 2: Significant advantage should be considered before reparable game state. Game state is considered something that is winnable, but the issue here is, what if you see a completely brick hand. One reason why that kind of private knowledge most judges donIt consider significant advantage, its subjective.

My senpai taught me this: Yugioh is a game of exceptions. Embrace that you actually have more fun.

@@MSTTV It’s so true

You sir need to read Meteonis Drytron and its inability to summon 0 atk rituals

@@MSTTV not even remotely related. the summoning condition for a ritual is not a cost, ritual summoning is an effect. you do not tribute the materials on activation the special summon of kashtira fenrir is not a COST to have no monsters, its a CONDITION. costs and conditions are different from each other and some cards have both, some have one or the other.

Not saying its definitively related to cost (thats something to ask Jerome), but it could possibly be a cost must be paid. Therefore the (min. 1) was added to simplify this. Pretty sure, they are stemming from the same concept of cannot over send / pay. If that (min.1) doesn't exist, we would be in a worst spot. In OCG their wording in terms of ATK/Exceeding comparison were identical. While one being part of the on resolution, the other being cost for activation. Any card activation that has a cost would require that cost to be paid on Activation, true and you cannot pay 0 cards for a card that counts the number of card's paid for the resolution (ie Droplet). When counting ATK points (not cards) to equal or exceed = something with 0 ATK. By not sending anything you matched the 0 ATK, but TCG they added (min.1) to allow for it without the need for ruling announcements. You must at least send 1, but you cannot send more monsters as it would be overpaying. To compare why they are from the same concept. A 4000 ATK Ritual Monster: Meteonis Drytron can tribute 2 Machine monster with 2000 ATK to summon it, you cannot send any more monster if those 2 monsters fulfills the requirement. A 100 ATK Ritual Monster: Meteonis Drytron can tribute 1 Machine monster with 2000 ATK to summon it, you cannot send any more monster if that 1 monster fulfills the requirement. A 0 ATK Ritual Monster: Meteonis Drytron cannot send any Machine Monsters because it would contribute to over sending. A 4000 ATK monster effect: DADD can can banish 2 Drytron 2000 ATK monster to negate it because they equal/exceed the 4000 ATK and fulfill the (min. 1), but you cannot banish any additional monsters if those 2 monster fulfills the requirement A 100 ATK monster effect: DADD can banish 1 Drytron 2000 ATK monster to negate it because 2000 ATK equals/exceeds the 100 ATK and fulfill the (min. 1), but you cannot banish any additional monsters if that 1 monster fulfills the requirement A 0 ATK monster effect: DADD can banish 1 Drytron monster to negate it because there needs to be a (min.1) for cost, but you cannot banish any additional monsters as an that 1 monster fulfills the requirement.

@@MSTTV well all that info is besides the point. its just the cost, condition is met when the monster effect activated there is no discussion of overpayment because its NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SITUATION. the min 1 requires at least 1 clarifies it and excludes an overpayment argument. until we get a monster with no atk stat (not 0 atk or ? like how link monsters have no def stat) the condition is met on activation with min 1, then you just look at is number bigger or smaller as for the banishing for cost to negate, you are not paying attack points, youre paying in banished cards which THEN checks attack points of THOSE its not functioning the same as the ritual spell checking you ARE paying attack points so you cannot pay 0 with 0 cards you CAN pay 0 OR MORE with 1 card, you cannot pay 0 with 0 cards and with droplet you cannot pay 0 to negate 0, you pay by sending the cards THEN you check which types (monster, spell, trap) have been sent and it gives the condition it cant be responded to, thats how the negate is functioning, you banish, confirm the atk has been equal or exceeded before a response can be made

this drytron negate is as simple as "can i divine wrath an effect veiler" if you cant understand that youre beyond help

Just skip it.

The argument stems from: Meteonis Drytron the ritual spell cannot summon 0 Atk rituals, due to overpayment. If one cannot and the same wording can for something else. While people try to make precedents, this effectively is an exception. I’m sure the long standing judges, can find more examples. This is one of those moment where someone when they appeal a ruling they are confident in and sudden comes back the other way around and people get really salty because the precedent didn’t apply.